User talk:Jalexander-WMF

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Jalexander)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jalexander!

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Jalexander-WMF!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Wmf logo vert pms.svg[edit]

Hi. File:Wmf logo vert pms.svg is using the wrong colors. Can it be deleted? I don't understand its value or purpose. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey MZ, I'm going to poke Jay to verify when he comes back from lunch but this is actually one of the reference files (and the definition of the right colors for this version) for the authorized pms colors so please don't delete it. There are a couple small variations because of the different color schemes but we want options available because different uses require different options (they can't all do CMYK for example). You can see all of them on the Visual Identity page that is being updated and refreshed to the new version that has been written (but only in pdf) for more then a year now. Jalexander (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what a reference file is. If anything, surely it would be the actual logo, which is here: File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg. You can see the correct colors there. They match four or five other project logo colors. Whatever PMS is, if it can't get the logo colors right, it probably should be avoided. The visual identity page is also using the wrong colors. I brought that up separately at wmf:Talk:Visual identity guidelines. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal team messages[edit]

Dear James, we don't need the legal team to spam our village pump with edit notices. Multichill (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Multichill, please have a look at Special:Permalink/100902509#Inappropriate_images_of_children and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_43#Inappropriate_images_of_children and please AGF! -- Rillke(q?) 07:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
And of course you should know about all the previous discussions were people voiced their concerns that they a) do not want to deal with that kind of abuse b) it is inappropriate to let untrained community admins deal with this kind of abuse. -- Rillke(q?) 07:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

File talk:Wikivoyage-logo.svg#Overwrite[edit]

could you give your opinion there? Thanks in advance. -- Rillke(q?) 11:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Σε ευχαριστώ[edit]

Thanks for the changes at greek wikivoyage logo.

Gagana Samoa: (missing text)

--Κωνσταντίνος13 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry of PD[edit]

After roughly reviewing WMF's refusal to DMCA's deletion request of certain PD image, I want your opinion on an old RfD case long ago at Commons. Here's the story: A fellow Wikimedian found that a website published reproduced image of national flags. The designs of the flags are technically in the public domain, but the website claimed copyright ownership of his/her reproduction. As that Wikimedian honestly addressed the source website while uploading them to Commons, an admin determined that those uploads are copyvio and deleted all of them. If you were the admin handling this RfD, what would be your decision? Thank you. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


If possible, download, please, Wikimedia, these three images at the highest resolution. Thanks in advance--IgorSokol (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Portrait of Margrave Johann of Brandenburg-Ansbach 1520

Emperor Charles V 1550

Portrait of Philipp von Hessen 1534-1539

Your last warning, Mister![edit]

"You're a long term user and deserved this warning, but I trust that you will not do it again. " - You are paid staff threating one of the volunteers who actually is doing the work that raises the money taht feeds you. You disgust me, Jalexander, you and your whole San Francisco mob disgust me. Instead of threatening people get your fucking jobs done over there like maintaining labs without such troubles and and and ... Of the WMF just a joke is left. It really seems more and more necessary that the volunteers gather in SF with torches and pitforks and take over the headquarter in a revolutionary move and clean the institution from the sleaze that seems to have grown over the years like cancer. --Julius1990 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this a threat of physical violence? Tarc (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No, more like purple prose. -- (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance please...[edit]

You left a note on my talk page.

Sorry, but your note falls far short of usefulness if you can't supply me with at least the source URL I supplied when I uploaded the image. I request you copy the {{information}} template from the image to my talk page. Further, I strongly encourage you, and your colleagues, to always supply the {{information}} template whenever you advise a contributor of a DMCA request. Geo Swan (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

For talk page stalkers and the record: Responded on Geo's talk page. Jalexander--WMF 22:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request with takedown notice[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:737-100 K14245.jpg. The user who created the deletion request wrote something which looks like a DMCA takedown notice. I'm not sure if the WMF is supposed to act on that or not as creating a deletion request isn't one of the methods listed at wmf:Designated agent, but you might be interested in knowing about the deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan4:, thanks, another admin pinged me on IRC about it and I checked in with legal. As far as they are concerned it doesn't apply as an official DMCA and asked the community to look at it through normal means. It sounds like that's being done now via speedy delete of that file and DR of related files from the same stream. Jalexander--WMF 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Dealing with the Sanders DMCA while also dealing with Wikipedia 15? (and probably some other things as well). I really wanted a multitasking theme, but this will have to do. Kudos Sphilbrick (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a ping[edit]

Double Clock.jpg

Hi James, I'm just letting you know that I pinged you a couple days ago to make sure that you see it, as you haven't responded yet, even though it's been a couple of days. odder (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Odder: Thanks, apologies for the delay, should get to it in the morning (pacific) Monday. Jalexander--WMF 06:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@James: → :-) odder (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitchell[edit]

Hello, since you are one of the WMF that enforces the Terms of Use, I am reporting a Commons admin, HJ Mitchell, for violating the Terms of Use, section 4. It states that:

Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud

Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation;

With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;

HJ Mitchell accuses a long term editor which is The Photographer for leaking information from the OTRS-wiki (diff). Then three uninvolved admins posted on HJ Mitchell's talk page to provide evidence to prove that TP leaked information from the OTRS-wiki. However, he didn't responded and ignored the message. Denniss then posted at HJ's enwiki talk page to respond at the message on his talk page here on Commons. HJ acknowledged it, but still didn't respond.

After realizing that HJ is ignoring the message that was posted on their talk page, odder brought the issue to the AN/U thread. But HJ still doesn't responded there, not just even 1 byte. We pinged HJ many times, but still no answer. So odder started a straw poll whether a de-adminship request must be made. Then after receiving a sufficient number of support, odder himself started a de-adminship which is here.

After a number of votes, russavia, a user globally banned by the WMF, posted at the de-adminship request about a ToU violation made by HJ. However, it was reverted by Colin, with the reason "globally banned users are not allowed to post anywhere on this site". Then Denniss reverted Colin, and Colin reverting Denniss with a warning to him. Josve05a, Stemoc, and Reguyla opposed Colin's revert . After that, The Photographer restored russavia's edit, but reverted by Colin. Reguyla reverted Colin, then Beyond My Ken reverted Reguyla, then Reguyla reverted BMK, and lastly, Jcb reverted Reguyla.

Since HJ Mitchell violates the ToU, is there any office action that must be made? Thanks, Poké95 09:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pokéfan95, Seconding your comment, I would like to hear an immediate answer to this problem and I am ready to follow this legal process to the end if no reply is received by WMF. --The Photographer (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The Photographer, can you clarify what you mean by "I am ready to follow this legal process to the end if no reply is received by WMF". Please see m:No legal threats and Wikipedia:No legal threats, which gives good advice even if not official Commons policy. IMO you should first ask an admin/'crat to remove/oversight the remark. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern Colin, however, I can not clarificarte you. I can not classify someone who really does not want to be clarified --The Photographer (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're not already, please be aware of this, an attempt to de-sysop HJ Mitchell. This request to you appears to be forum-shopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Forum shopping or not, if a violation ha been done, then a violation has been done, and then the de-syops request will have no point. Josve05a (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not forum shopping but it's probably not necessary. I doubt Jalexander-WMF will do anything though, especially with the desysop already in process. I'll let him decide on the merits himself. It looks like HJ has abandoning editing this project anyway so its moot for the moment. Reguyla (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: This is not forum shopping, it is a serious violation of the WMF's Terms of Use, and must be reported to the WMF. Forum shopping and violation of the ToU are different. Regards, Poké95 09:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Nah, it's an obvious attempt to punish HJ Mitchell made when the de-sysop seemed not to be working. We're not idiots, you know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record everyone: I've seen this, I'd appreciate if we stop the fighting here if possible (or at least bicker at me). I will respond as soon as possible after I'm able to get some time from a lawyer to double check some things. Jalexander--WMF 23:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi @Pokéfan95: (and everyone else watching), apologies for the delays in responding. I've spoken to legal about the question here and we have reviewed the evidence provided to us. Based on that evidence, we have concluded that this is not a case where WMF should take action against HJ Mitchell.
There are a few reasons for our conclusion. First, it's not clear that the statements are libel. Statements of opinion and discussion in an investigation such as a request for adminship are generally not libel or defamation, even when they are very negative towards a person and reading what has been provided that appears to be what this was.
Second, even if the statements were libel (and we don't think they are) the TOU don't apply to all libel or to all false information. Rather, as you quoted, they apply where someone acts "intentionally or knowingly" to post libel or defamation, or posts false information with the "intent to deceive." Based on the evidence we have, HJ Mitchell's posts do not fall into these categories.
For those reasons, we have determined not to take any action against HJ Mitchell based on the evidence we have at present.
Regarding your comments about the concerning actions of users on his de-adminship page when a banned users comment was removed we have been thinking about that since Monday and obviously did not want to rush into a rash, ill thought out, action. We will however be making a statement about it and should be able to do that relatively soon. Jalexander--WMF 05:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The last statement in this area by a WMF employee was to make specific threats. If you are going to make a statement, I suggest trying a different tack. Being credibly supportive of the Wikimedia Commons community and a move to improving transparency and offer some sort of independent governance of office locks when these apply to long term Commons contributor accounts, might be taken as positive; especially if effort is made actively to engage and listen to community concerns. Making a statement that cannot be read or misread as a threat or overriding community agreed policies, in the light of other more urgent events for the WMF, is likely to be the wisest course of action. There is a community of trusted volunteers that you can rely on to improve policy and make sensible decisions, it would be great if the WMF was seeking to empower volunteers rather than inventing bigger sticks and paying for more WMF "police" time. Thanks -- (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Fae does not speak for the "community" nor is the picture he paints of a functioning "community of trusted volunteers" an accurate one. I hope WMF take into account the needs and wishes of the large variety of people who participate on Commons, and not just those who hang around the drama boards vocalising their opinions and playing power games. I wish for a Commons where those who behave badly enough that they are banned stay banned, and the ban is effectually enforced. Where they are not aided by admins who go onto misuse their tools in order to block people they are in dispute with. The evidence from the other day shows unfortunately that our admins and 'crats cannot always be relied on to "make sensible decisions" and frequently ignore policy to turn a blind eye to serious policy breaches when it suits them, or when they are too spineless to put fingers to keyboard. I hope WMF do more than just "make a statement" but actually demonstrate they take WMF global ban enforcement seriously, and that their threat of sanctions wasn't a hollow one. -- Colin (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Outdenting since this could get long. @: As I've told you before I belive attempting to conflate these, much older and very different, concerns with the more recent WMF issues is insulting and disingenuous. You should know that it will not sway me in your direction. I, and the WMF in general, have been listening and engaging on this since the start, both on and off wiki, and I expect to continue to do so. The fact that we may not have done everything you would like us to is not proof to the contrary (though it is a common logical fallacy) there have been at least as many people complaining that we have not done enough as have complained that we have done too much (in fact more). I will not tell you we are going to allow local oversight of Office bans because we won't (at this point, it is off the table for the foreseeable future though, as I've said many times, we do build in independent oversight now from the Stewards). Global bans are done when there is a global need, the wikis are independent to an extent but in the end they are all part of a larger global group of projects and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in these cases.

While I am a strong believer that local governance is an important aspect of the WIkimedia Projects (and always has been) I am also of the opinion (and have been since long before I was a staff member) that local governance is neither a suicide pact (for the local community or the global) nor is it absolute. Sometimes local governance fails and local action needs to be taken and sometimes global issues require global action, regardless of the choice or preference of a specific local community involved in that action. We can never allow one community to hold others hostage and, if at all possible, we want to avoid having small groups within a local community hold that community as a whole hostage.

That said a large number of our decisions over the past couple of years have been an attempt to allow Commons and other local communities to deal with our actions through their own local governance processes with as little interference from the WMF as possible. Our original response to most questions after we banned local users (Russavia was not the first on Commons or elsewhere) was some variation of "we leave that up to the community", when the question was "should we delete files", "should we revert their edits", "should they be allowed to have a new featured photo" or what. Except for limited exceptions, we have remained consistent in the aforementioned approach because allowing Commons to deal with it on their own was very important to us. We did so despite many commoners being very unhappy with this approach , because the number of complaints we received that we are not taking more action was by far higher than the number of those complaining that we took too much (though the complaints that we took too much weighed heavily towards on-wiki while other complaints were often more by email or other private medium). Eventually, however, you have to admit when it isn't working as planned. When that happened we tried making more explicit statements (such as the ones we made in February) but, failing that, there is no alternative but to take actions to back those statements up (such as the ones today).

I hope to continue the trend of local governance going forward as much as possible as well. However as I said above, that is not a suicide pact. The edit warring on the RfDA was not a case of a trusted commons member enforcing commons policy to the detriment of the Foundation; it was a symptom of flawed community governance where people are being intimidated into silence, edit and wheel warring in order to get the 'right' version. As @Colin: hinted at, Commons is not currently a healthy community. And it is a sad state of affairs when I get more people reaching out to me in private, asking for something to be done, because they are afraid to speak up on wiki or participate, on either side, in the on wiki conversation for the same topic.

Today we desysopped Denniss for 30 days because of not only his actions here but the fact that he did so after both our warnings in general this February, and the more specific warnings to him last June. Some people are bound to be very unhappy about that but, mark my words, some will think we should have done much more. However I truly hope that the larger commons community, consisting of both those who have been afraid to speak up as well as those who have been vocal and loud on both sides, is able to move forward. I am confident that you all want is what is best for the project. We can only be better off if we work together. Jalexander--WMF 07:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • "We do build in independent oversight now from the Stewards" can you provide the link to the procedure/policy that explains exactly how this works? As far as I am aware, this has never been offered to Russavia, so I do not believe it applies in the context given above. P.S. "the stewards" is not part of the Commons Community, as they are not elected by us. Neither were you. Denniss was. Thanks -- (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


Could you fix your signature so that it links to your talk page rather than just the WMF website? It looks wrong, like you think you are the CEO and the single voice of the WMF, or something like that. It's not common practice for WMF employees. Thanks -- (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[tldr: Sure, done]: Hmmm, I've had that for a couple years now (probably around 4 now) and never had any real issues but it's certainly a product of a bygone era (it was originally done when my account did not have -WMF attached and the lack of global rename meant it would have taken AGES to do so since I had edited almost every single wiki we had). I actually added the link in (after adding the WMF) because a couple people had asked for more context (overall while obviously those of us who have been active in the governance space know what it means even a lot of longer term editors, and definetly readers/new editors don't necessarily right off the top of their head and so it helped. That said it's no sweat off my back at this point and i imagine most of the active users on commons know enough about me from my userpage or context to not make it a big problem. Jalexander-WMF (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Okeyes (WMF)[edit]

Greetings James. I noticed Okeyes (WMF) this the other day and I wasn't sure if I should touch it. Since he doesn't work for the WMF anymore should we do something about accounts like this? Not saying this is action on your part, I just thought you might know the best way to handle these. Reguyla (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Reguyla: hmm, I'm not 100% sure the specific bit you were talking about so if I miss a part in my response feel free to poke back!.
  • Actually shutting down (locking) the account is usually the responsibility of the Office IT team within the Foundation (since they are also the ones who have to shut down their email/building/etc access as well). Currently only m:User:JGulingan_(WMF) has the rights to do so but we're training up others within her team. They're a bit behind right now because of a recent departure in that team but It looks like they caught up today (not sure if that was before or after they saw my poke about it). If they hold any user rights on their staff account I generally handle that in bulk with the Stewards at some point down the road since they're not able to log in and so low risk (with that batch I'll probably do that Thursday or Friday when I clean up and update the permissions list next).
  • I used to handle the account locks most of the time as well but it became infamously difficult to tell when someone 'actually' left the WMF (they might have left as staff but hung around as a contractor to help finish a project or something for example) and for everyone to be notified. That's why I've been trying to move it to OfficeIT and I usually only do it myself in cases where it needs to happen 'now' for some particular reason (sudden departure even under apparently good circumstances are a bit risky for example and so you usually want to shut down 'official' access as much as possible). I still often remove user rights early since my requirement is that they don't need them anymore (not that they don't work for us anymore).
  • The other piece that you may have been thinking about was marking the user page itself to be historical/that of a former staff member.We're still trying to figure out internally who, exactly, should do that (HR, OIT, someone else, something automatic) but I went ahead and put the meta
    template on his Meta user page (so default global one). It doesn't appear to exist currently on commons but either you or I could either create it here or I'm happy to delete the user page here so that the meta version shows through.
  • As an aside one of my major projects next quarter (April-June) beyond the usual firefighting is to do an overhaul of the system of user rights that staff get. My goal is always to give people what they need for their job but to give them as little access as possible both to avoid stepping on community toes where possible and (even more importantly) to avoid more people having Checkuser or Oversight then necessary since most wont' know how to use it (or the policies) and fewer people with access to that information the better. Part of this will include an overhaul of the existing "staff" right to turn it into a global group for ALL staff accounts (right now it's only a very small percentage given all of the rights attached) but with essentially no rights (maybe token autoconfirmed or something). This would allow us or others to do neat tricks such as gadgets which say whether an account is a staff account (or an edit is from one) and would make it much easier for me to do automatic removals of that right when they leave (I'm also hoping to look into getting notifications straight from the internal HR systems to help trigger that better). Does that answer your question or was I off base? ;) Jalexander-WMF (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I didn't know who handled those accounts but I figured you did and I don't think anyone was doing anything they shouldn't have with those accounts I just thought it would be confusing to users if they tried to contact someone who didn't work there anymore.
As for the Checkuser tool. I have stated publicly I don't have much respect for the Checkuser tool, the process for using it or several of the people who have access to it. It's prone to errors and abuse and far too many people have access to it and don't know how to use it properly. Most of the use of the tool is gut instinct over actual factual data (because it doesn't really tell much). It's just a mallet that's used to treat everything like a nail. Additionally, given the lack of oversight of the use of those tools it's too often used in an abusive way. Just look at how Mike V used it on 250+ people recently at ENWP to "cleanup" of the IPBE role (cleanup that didn't need to be done BTW) and that is just one obvious and public example. Most of the time it's done in secret and I would promise that if anyone were to ever audit the usage logs they would see all sorts of appalling and questionable things. Reguyla (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I looked at several former staffers and didn't see an existing template so I created the Former staff template as you suggested and modeled it on the one at Meta for consistency. The category is different here but I created a category redirect to account for the Meta wiki category just in case someone adds it directly. I only added it to the one for Okeyes for the moment but if you want I can include it on others rather quickly. I should note however that some do not contain the WMF identifier so I would recommend not adding it to the ones that don't not such as Eloquence or Sue Gardner. This is a good example IMO of the need for a central repository for standard templates used on multiple wiki's and the ability to use them cross wiki. Not that we need another Wiki to maintain, but using something like Meta as a source location might work. Reguyla (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sent you an Email[edit]

@Jalexander-WMF: I just sent you an email. Reguyla (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GYoung (WMF)[edit]

Commons administrator Ellin Beltz asks I contact you about this. Unfitlouie (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer[edit]

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Commons User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Mobile App Guidelines - not confusing logos 03.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Mobile App Guidelines - not confusing logos 03.png 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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)