User talk:MGA73/Archive 19

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Licence

On the file File:Vote Stuckist 2001 Machine and Vine (4).jpg you said, "Marking as not eligible for changing license in the big license migration - from other web site".[1] The web site is Stuckism.com. On that site is a page headed "GFDL TEXT", where it says, "Material released under GFDL is also co-licensed as CC-BY-SA-3" (with a link to the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" page). The GFDL-licensed images can therefore also be tagged as CC-BY-SA-3.0. I was not aware of that, when I first uploaded images from stuckism.com, and it may have been added since. Ty 09:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Wow you are quite a detective :-) I made this edit with my bot so there is a chance that a few images could have been migrated even if my bot said no (we have to many images to check them all manually). So if you find a mistake you are most welcome to fix it. Thank you for telling me anyway. We might have other images from stuckism.com. --MGA73 (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Some may have been incorrect, but it's academic, as the site has dual-licensed them all anyway. I was looking into it, as the licence for some has been challenged. See User talk:ABF#Permissions. I don't see what the problem is, as the licence is clearly stated on the originating site. Perhaps you could advise. There are still images from stuckism.com (as with the one I linked to above) which are shown as just GFDL, but which could also have CC added. Ty 09:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: issue with ABF resolved. Ty 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes my plan is to look at this later when I have some time. We should perhaps make a standard template for images from stuckism.com and add this one on alle the images from that page. But there might be a problem. Some images are photos of copyrighted paintings and that makes the images violate COM:DW. So we should be careful with these images. --MGA73 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
There are some pages on the site just of artwork, e.g. this one, where it is stated that the artist has given permission for the release. Elsewhere, e.g. the image at the bottom of this page the description says, "GFDL release applies to the photo, not the individual artworks shown." I presume it is the latter case that is a problem as not suitable for Commons, rather than the former, and where care must be taken. Ty 17:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is correct. So if photo shows a painting or "a work" we need to check if there is a permission. --MGA73 (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Glabb

Glabb made a response here about the Chinese bridges on panoramio review. If you are confident in his message, feel free to pass it. If not pls send a message to his talkpage as I did. I have no account at panoramio as I told him.

  • It seems....I was too late. ZooFari has failed them all. But if you want to try one last time, send a message to Glabb on his Common's account as I did here and tell him that all his images have been failed now. You can read my message to him...before ZooFari marked the photos. My guess came true sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review notice

Category:Mountains of Devon

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Mountains of Devon 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 category, 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 | 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jolly Janner (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, the parent category could do with a clean-up, as only Cumbria has a "mountain". Jolly Janner (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. For a start I deleted all the empty categories. The images in the other categories is either in a wrong location (wrong county) or it should go in "Hills of xxx" or whatever is best. But a human review is needed. --MGA73 (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems we need a good definition of what a mountain is Category:Mountains less than 500 meters. --MGA73 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Think the English definition is over 910 m. Jolly Janner (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me butting in, but the problem is there is no real widely accepted definition of when a hill is actually a mountain, or vice versa. I'd been meaning to bring this up before as we have categories 'Mountains of Wales' and 'Hills of Wales' (as MGA73 knows, I've been concentrating on the Wales geograph files). It's a question of relativity perhaps. The traditional measurement, in feet, still counts in the countries of Britain and most people would say that 3,000 foot plus = a mountain, but many "hills" of lesser height are often also called "mountains", e.g. Moel Siabod (2,860'). The peaks of Snowdonia are often called mountains, but I have a classic guidebook for the region called 'The Hills of Snowdonia'. I think the easiest answer is to use the *Hills categories only for all the counties. Anatiomaros (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, both Welsh and English wikis have avoided this problem by having the categories *Mountains and hills of... Perhaps this would be the ideal solution here as well (but by bot!). Anatiomaros (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is a solution. As an example en:Mickle Fell says "Mickle Fell is a mountain in ... It is 788 m (2,585 ft) high ..." --MGA73 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Arguably we would still need *Hills of... as subcats for some places, just as the 'en' cat Mountains and hills of England has some subcats *Mountains and hills of... but others are just *Hills of... (Devon, for instance). By the way, have you seen our Category:60s mountains? (Not sure about that as a category name either: '60' what?!) The only file in it is this, a picture of a small bump in the landscape that would hardly even qualify as a "hill" in my part of the world, let alone a mountain :-) Anatiomaros (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OTRS on Commons

Can you put an OTRS ticket for this image on Commons here. There was one for it on wikipedia which was added by Admin Masur. I made a note in the image file history and talk page here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate

Which image below would you tag as the duplicate? I think actually this newer upload has a better image title than the other but I have no views here. However, the other has a longer image description...which I cannot translate:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I kept the "original" file. It was in use. I copied the info from the new one. --MGA73 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: That's OK. Just one comment. The deleted image was also used on wikipedia somewhere....but I think you noticed that. It may have been in an article on this person. That was why the uploader uploaded that duplicate image. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I really hope not. Global usage shows no use and delinker log shows nothing. But if I get a complaint all I can say is "I'm sorry" and fix the link :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This poster

Is this photo allowable given that it focuses almost exclusively on political posters that may be copyrighted but are clearly derivative work:

What do you think? I just saw this after the review bot passed it. De Minimis should not apply in this case. This does not look like a simple poster to me but I am not an expert. Some of it is professional work and some is amateur work. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv! Once again you have spottet problems. De Minimis clearly does not apply. I really doubt that someone can find good arguments as why this should be free i both Russia and the US. --MGA73 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • OK. I'll tag it with a speedy delete and see what happens. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Bolsavalorescolombia.jpg

This image really cannot be kept here when you check the uploader's talkpage and upload history. It is his final surviving upload here....and he never says it is 'own work.' Would you think this merits deletion by an Admin like yourself? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I could speedy delete but I will try to find it and get a permission because it is very used... I changed to a DR to get a few days to look for the image and get the permission. Good work! --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • URGENT:

Can you, as an Admin, confirm if we can keep or cannot keep bighandking's images. Uploader Glabb sent me 2 messages here today. The license specified is free of NC or ND restrictions....the only problem is the lack of mention of the use of the photos outside of wikipedia specification. Anyway, I need your input as Glabb is upset that he contacted the author and still the 14 images were all failed Do I or you pass them or do nothing? What do I tell Glabb that I haven't on his talkpage here today...before he responded with his second message? Personally, I know that Glabb knows the right license and he has removed the NC & ND restriction....and contacted the author. So what do I do for the present bighandking photos. Please reply today if possible. I need assistance here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Maybe I made a mistake. Bighandking doesn't say anything about lifting derivative rights. Sorry, Bighandking does relinquish derivative rights in the first message on the panoramio link. So, I'm stuck again! --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say keep and pass. He has accepted the license. --MGA73 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That is clear enough. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem for the new page with the discussion, also thank you very much for your understanding and the time spent for these photos, regards --Glabb (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome :-) You did some pretty good work yourself! --MGA73 (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Picasa images

Could you please take a look at the two files at User talk:Kaihsu#Picasa images? I tried to verify that I took them myself, but they still got deleted. Perhaps you can restore them. Thanks. – Kaihsu Tai (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've missed your response on your talk page. I left an answer for you there so other users can see "what happend" under the relevant section on your talk page. --MGA73 (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Yaqoub Abdulla.jpg

Do you know how to upload this image? The uploader seems to have given up. But it is licensed freely and the source is trustworthy. (therea re other images from his account here). I haven't a clue. If you don't, perhaps it is best to just use your Admin authority and just delete this file as it serves no purpose in its current state. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have no idea what went wrong... But now it is uploaded. Perhaps user wanted to crop the image? --MGA73 (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have no idea how to upload images this way. I thought maybe you knew. It has now passed review. Hopefully it will be useful to someone here. With Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fl sourcing

Hi MGA73. I noticed you frequently checked flickr stuff. I was wondering if there is any (occasional) check in place that prevents the type of sourcing done here. Obviously, I couldn't find the image in the group.  Docu  at 22:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If the image is not uploaded by one of our tools then there is no check that source is ok. Except the human review when the bot add a "File not found-review". --MGA73 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Dear MGA, It seems likely that these 2 unused images are copyright violations...since the uploader does not claim to be the author. How do we know that he owns the business site where he derived the images? So they should be deleted. This long absent uploader only has 3 images on Commons.

What do you think? His final image is under DR. The DR was filed by another user but the same copy vio problem is present...'no author information.' Do you agree? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They were deleted before I saw this notice :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • OK then. Thanks for your comments anyway. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are knowledgeable about copyright violations

Can you have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:CoA of the RSI.svg? Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --MGA73 (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Ste_Mere_Eglise_Paratroopers_from_Heaven.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ste_Mere_Eglise_Paratroopers_from_Heaven.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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Teofilo (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Delete. Moved along with hundreds of freely licensed Flickr images. --MGA73 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:PengoDiscipline.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:PengoDiscipline.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in 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 | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | 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)‎ | +/−

Tryphon 08:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not find your proof for that convincing so I changed to a regular DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:PengoDiscipline.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Toy images

Hi, could you pls. have a look on User:Tryphon removed edits in the past few days. As far as I've seen he put some other speedy deletion requests to images of other toys. Some other admins already removed some of them like File:CrystalCastle.jpg, File:CorsocomobearbrickJI1.jpg, File:Bugs-2x hg.jpg or File:Albummad.jpg. But I don't know if I missed some. It might be an idea to undelete them and put them together with your and my toy-image into a general deletion debate. thx and reagards. --Jutta234 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes some has been deleted. I looked at the images and I think most of these is ok to delete. I'm really not sure what to do here. If we put them all in one DR it will probably be a mess. I'll ask some of the other admins. --MGA73 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Gyeongju City-hall.JPG

I'm afraid this image file cannot be kept. I had a derivative image DR'ed here. and this original is licensed as 'ARR.' The uploader is absent. There is another image of this city hall here: this one. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I deleted the image. Uploader was informed last year but did not respond. --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I recognised the derivative image made from it which was also deleted in a regular DR. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Two photos

It does not seem possible to keep these 2 recent photos with no source:

Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I saw your comment to Dr. Fo. Tin. I agree that most of his images will have to be deleted but I am not sure about this one below. Dr Fo asked the author in May 2008 and on January 4, 2009, the copyright owner said 'go right ahead' (and apologised for his late reply) although he did not specify the license. See this:
  • File:Aéroport Djerba Zarzis - Tunisia.jpg

Lupo told me that in 2007/2008, the permission would be OK but in 2009, it would not be OK because Commons became more strict with image permissions. However, since the author gave clear permission so close to 2009, this may perhaps be kept. I am not interested in doing any 'Admin shopping' and if you think the image has to be deleted, then so be it, but pls just look at this single case. I would say that this is probably the only image that may be saved from Dr Fo's uploads. The only problem is the author did not specify the license but he was told by Dr Fo where the picture is located on Commons...and he did not object. Dr. Fo did mention the word copyright. If you agree, then pass just this one image and no more. If not, then do nothing; it will be deleted shortly anyway. I have no problem either way. I remembered this one case. While Dr Fo uploaded the image quite late in 2009--April 2009--the actual permission was issued very close to the end of 2008 (only 4 days after in 2009) and this image could possibly be kept because in 2007/2008 Commons permissions wasn't very strict. But if we are strict with the law, then the cut off date is January 1, 2009, and the image has to be deleted. Lupo was *strict* with the 2009 date (he recommended I did not pass it) but maybe one can be reasonable here since the permission is not even 7 days into 2009. Think carefully about this case. Would most Admins pass it in this case? Only you can answer this question. I cannot since I am only a trusted user. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes. Normally we add a "No source" and/or "No license" on images and wait 7 days before we delete. Speedy is mostly for clear copyvios or totally useless stuff. If we just delete the images then uploader may not know what the problem is.
As for DrFO.Jr.Tn then I hope for a good response. If not I plan to make DR for all images without any sign of permission - I expect that to end as "Delete" with no complaints unless someone wants to try to get a permission. As for the images with some sort of permission we should take them one by one (or if there is a "set"). I have also looked at the one you mention and I would probably vote keep in a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note

I removed the vote-template from your comment, if you find this really objectionable then do not hesitate in undoing my edit... but I'd prefer not to encourage a poll on the subject. He's indefed, no one is yet discussing unblocking him, and thats really like infinite support. I'm happy with infinite support. A big discussion is just likely to make Ottava more upset and create drama. --Gmaxwell (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats ok. Was just ment as a quick way to see that I support the block. --MGA73 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This DR

I hope you can make a response to the DR I filed below to that image. FOP allows that image to be used in Algeria and Tunisia. As for Dr Fo Tin's other images, I predict there will be not much positive response. There was 1-2 efforts to contact the copyright owners but they seem to be away. Anyway, please make a response to the DR I filed. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --MGA73 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making a reply. Now its up to the closing Admin to decide whether the permission is sufficient or not. I respect the Admin's decision either way of course. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Version remove request.

Hi, as I don't know where to request s.th. like this officially. Could you pls. remove the first image-version (and only that version) of File:Frankfurter Buchmesse 2005.jpg. Its because its showing derivate images/paintigs. Its coming out of the de:Image-Checking-group (de:WP:DÜP) I'm currently working on. Thx. --Jutta234 (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --MGA73 (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thx. --Jutta234 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical permission from Mourad El Garci to Dr Fo found by me

Dear MGA73,

Do you remember the message you sent to Dr. Fo about all those images? Well...I have now found the original permission from M. El Garci to Dr. Fo on 20 May 2008 when I passed this image here I had to do some translation from French to English but the message is clear. (look at the talk page for my translation) M. El Garci gave Dr. Fo permission to use his panoramio images. And since Lupo said that in 2008, Commons was not strict with permissions, you can pass all images uploaded solely by Dr Fo from Mourad El Garci's panoramio account in 2008 as long as it was NOT uploaded in 2009. (in 2009, it would require OTRS) Just archive my message on the talkpage and pass the images. It is clear enough, I think. I am busy with another project but hope you can help out here. El Garci's images are generally of top quality. As an aside, I will remove the notice of the image which I passed from Dr. Fo's talkpage. Luckily, it preserved the original permission by El Garci.

I hope this helps and that you can now pass some images you noted on Dr Fo's talk page. It must just be uploaded in 2008 from Mourad El Garci's account. (it is El Garci, not El Garcy). I think this is good news. With Best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Is the permission enough to pass the remaining 20 images by El Garci here? Lupo would say it is enough since it is a 2008 permission, not a 2009 one that required OTRS. I was hoping you would pass the other images and cite my talk page link. Or do you want me to pass the images? I humbly await your reply. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv. I suggest that we wait for the DR to be closed. If it is kept we could link to that and if Community thinks we should delete then passing is perhaps not a good idea. --MGA73 (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess the DR refers to this image here. I have told Lupo about this image and invited him to pass it. Hopefully he will act. But I don't know. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Good work with the images!!! Sorry about the late response. --MGA73 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This DR

I made a response to your message above on 1 of M. El Garci's images to Lupo and mentioned the problem. The other image where a formal DR was filed--which was uploaded by Dr Fo--was NOT from M. El Garci's account. (it was another author)

  • But on another issue above, I ask here that this DR here be closed as delete because the uploader (Geagea) requested that it be closed as delete. This is a simple case since the image was not found in time from panoramio anyway, the uploader does not disagree and the image is unused. I don't remember if I checked the license sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you close that DR I mentioned as delete to help Geagea out. He has other issues to deal with and I did not check the license. It would be a credit to others to see that he actually asks that images which he uploaded without a source be deleted today in his RfA. I intend to be neutral in his RfA now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I've been busy. Deleted now :-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That's OK. I have been busy too. Thanks for helping Geagea especially....and me. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

File:MiamiHeatWadeBoshJamesParty.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:MiamiHeatWadeBoshJamesParty.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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JoeJohnson2 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sletning af første version af File:CV Jorgensen Roskilde 20100713.jpg

Hejsa. jeg klokkede i det i den første udgave af File:CV Jorgensen Roskilde 20100713.jpg og fik hældt mit telefonnummer ind i Exif-data. Jeg har uploadet en ny, rettet version.

Kan du hjælpe med at slette/skjule den første udgave af filen eller skal jeg have en DR på den? Mvh Knud Winckelmann (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nej, nej. Så besværlige er vi ikke :-) Den er væk nu. --MGA73 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Gracias. Knud Winckelmann (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)