User talk:Liji6085

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Liji6085!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Statue of Chief Engineer Jin Hen.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Statue of Chief Engineer Jin Hen.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: There is no FOP in Taiwan for 3D art, only for buildings, so even though the image is free, the sculpture can only be kept if the architect died at least 50 or 70 years ago depending on a country's law. This is unlikely as the subject of the statue died in 1956 or only 57 years ago. So, the sculpture's creator would not be dead for more than 50 or 70 years...since no one knows when the sculpture was even created. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The rule is 50 or 70 years after the artists death depending on the country. In Japan, its 50 years. I don't know about Taiwan. In European countries without FOP, its 70 years. If this was in China, it would be OK, but its in Taiwan. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No. The artist is the original painter or sculptor or architect. (ie. the designer) The photographer just takes pictures of the sculpture. The point here is...no one knows who created the sculpture in Taiwan but since the subject died in 1956, its unlikely the sculptor has been dead for 50 years unless we know his identity. Why does Wikicommons have so many images of the Eiffel Tower in Paris even though France has no Freedom of Panorama. (see the map here)Because FOP ends 70 years after the death of the original designer, painter or architect...and Gustav Eiffel died in December 1923. 70 years after 1923 is 1993...and so images of the Eiffel Tower become copyright free no matter what French laws say about FOP. FOP has an expiry date but the statue design in Taiwan has a modern design and I doubt the sculptor has been dead for 70 years. If this was in China, Vietnam, Burma, India, Malaysia or Singapore, there would be no problem as they have full FOP, but Taiwan--like Japan--follow US law on sculptures. So, they have very limited FOP--basically on landscapes (images of nature) and buildings. Thank You and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

提醒[edit]

如果您的照片,並沒有比原本的圖片來的好(拍攝角度 畫質 檔案大小),就請不要覆蓋別人的作品。 --福克大叔 15:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

那我也再次提醒你,你也並非原圖檔的作者,少在那邊恐嚇我,有那個本事就去檢舉看看!!! --福克大叔 16:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:2010 07 18550 5233 Chenggong Township, Taiwan.JPG and others[edit]

Hi Liji6085,
thanks for your changes to the files (adding Category:Haian Range). This is how it should go, whenever somebody knows something more, add or change it.
By the way, I saw that you don't have a User page yet. For us in the community it's nice to have some background info (no facebook like or others), just go as far as you wish.
Best wishes Lord Koxinga (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Guang Pi Ba Biao.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Guang Pi Ba Biao.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Elly Trần 7am.vn (35).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Elly Trần 7am.vn (35).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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent deletion requests[edit]

Please stop making mass deletion requests which are a.) obviously not a copyright violation and b.) making false statements like "Uploader has otherwise no contribution" like in this case or in this case. In cases like this you should take a look at the source before starting a DR. Missing EXIF data is not a reason for copyvio.--Wdwd (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the user didn't listen Wdwd, I have been closing as kept a pile of invalid DN's. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

ridiculous reason for deletion request[edit]

no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Ianbu (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Taroko photo deletion requests[edit]

no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work".

That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen all week. When was having EXIF a requirement, and how in the world did you come to the conclusion that no EXIF info ⇒ unlikely own work?

Uploader has otherwise no contribution.

Excuse me – I have over 1600 contributions in Commons alone, including 300+ hand-drawn illustrations each taking on average half a day's work to produce. And you have the gall to state that I've "no contribution".

Will you please exercise due diligence before making such inane requests? It is partially such behaviour that is driving away editors.

cmglee (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Re:Category:Sicao and Category:Sicao Wetland[edit]

This website is a gorvernment web of R.O.C. Taijiang National Park manages these places, so I think the infomation from this web is more official and correct .

And this website of Ministry of the Interior,R.O.C ,also suggests that "四草" should be translated as "Sicao".--祥龍 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sihcao" is old version by Tongyong Pinyin(通用拼音), "Sicao" is new version by Hanyu Pinyin (漢語拼音).--祥龍 (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I just tried trnslating the word by suggestion of R.O.C gorvernment. If you know the better way to translating the word, just do it. I have done my best to tell you why I did it, but it looks like failed. I'm sorry for my poor English skill. --祥龍 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My translation refers to Ministry of the Interior ([1]), Ministry of Education ([2][3][4]) and Ministry of Justice ([5]), Republic of China (Taiwan). Do you have better references can tell me for improving my translation ?--祥龍 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: File:烏山嶺引水隧道01.jpg[edit]

Always welcome:)--Stang 10:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)