User talk:P199

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:P199.

This is the user talk page of P199, where you can send messages and comments to P199.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.

বাংলা | български | čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | français | hrvatski | italiano | 한국어 | മലയാളം | português | русский | sicilianu | 中文 | +/−

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.


Photos marked for deletion[edit]

Hi P199,

You have marked these pictures for possible deletion.

I am the creator of the article Ron Baird, I have a family connection with him (which I have disclosed), and used these pictures with his permission. Let me know if there is anything I can do to verify the validity of these photographs.

Thanks,

Artscanada (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artscanada: A family connection or permission is not sufficient. The photographer of these images him/herself has to explicitly release the images with a Commons compatible license, see COM:OTRS. Please continue the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Artscanada. --P 1 9 9   21:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Leopard cat range.PNG[edit]

Hi, please be aware that a map is not a 'Geographic or topographic feature'. Maps are copyrighted. This map is clearly above TOO. Please reconsider your closure. Jcb (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jcb: We have had this discussion before. It seems your interpretation is far stricter than what COM:DW says. In this case, the base map is nothing more than a simple outline of country borders. As per COM:DW: The factual information, such as boundary lines and locations of landmarks, is supposedly unprotected. By comparison, I deleted a map today that clearly presents the map info in a proprietary way and does not meet the exceptions stated in DW (File:Cartefortant.png). --P 1 9 9   18:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you mind if I renom for second opinion? Only very few admins keep such maps. Not sure if you are familiar with the process of map making. Being a pilot, I have had to learn a lot about this. A map of such a part of the world is (unlike e.g. some square US states), not just simple data. The earth is more or less spherical, while maps are flat. Map makers have to make several choices to bring the advantages and disadvantages of several approaches (e.g. constant angle, constant distance) in a balance, so that the combination of those factors leads to a map that is the most suitable for a certain purpose. A map like this one is really not something you draw on a rainy afternoon. Jcb (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: I'm sorry, but the means and methods of map making are not the issue. DW are based on the final result. Suppose this map was indeed based on a non-free image and we asked the author to redo it based on File:BlankMap-World.png, it would look exactly the same! That shows that there is nothing proprietary on this map; COM:DW states: A map isn't copyrightable if the idea it expresses could only be done in one way. IMO I feel this applies to simple outline maps. Regards, --P 1 9 9   18:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
        • "could only be done in one way" - this is definitely not true for suchs maps, there is big variety of possibilities and there are many different results possible. See also en:Map projection. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: This requires much wider discussion than just the 2 of us. Better to do this at the Village Pump then to nominate individual images. Regards, --P 1 9 9   16:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Almost all admins do recognize that maps are copyrightable. I do not see a wider problem here. While handling the Images without source backlog, I come accross many unsourced maps. Basically there are three possibilities:
    1. I find the source (e.g. via information outside the 'source' field) and that source is free, e.g. CIA maps.
    2. I do not find a free source and I start a DR. During that DR, somehow new information leads to a free source. Result: file is kept.
    3. I do not find a free source and I start a DR. No free source is found during that DR. Result: file is deleted.
  • In case of this file, the DR was closed as kept, while a valid free source was absent. This is normally unheard of and should not happen. I can accept that an admin could somehow misunderstand DW, but I would be negligent if I would not try to fix this with the involved colleague. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted pictures[edit]

Hello colleague. I would like these photos to be deleted. Very much please.

Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ragnar Holte.jpg[edit]

Hi, I would like you to be more specific when closing this DR. Please explain, what discussion do you mean — random speculations on the age of the photograph, which has been never published before uploading on Commons or unreasoned voting, started due to canvassing on svwiki? What is your opinion on this comment, concerning COM:HIRTLE? Sealle (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • So are you going to reply? Sealle (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sealle: Re-evaluating now. Give me another day. --P 1 9 9   21:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Should I still wait for an answer from you? Sealle (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Sealle asked me to comment. At moment, the file states 1966 as creation year. No proof for that is given, but considering, how Ragnar looks like, this is plausible and in my opinion the photo is in public domain in source country Sweden, because 50 years from creation has passed. But current license states: "You must also include a United States public domain tag". I'm afraid, that the photo is still copyrighted in USA. No publication data here. If the photo was ever published, then 95 years from first publishing is needed, but if it was never published, then 120 years from creation is needed for public domain. Taivo (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sealle: Done. Sorry, Commons was pretty low on my priority list this week. --P 1 9 9   18:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I follow this discussion because I think it is a very interesting issue. I interpret this sentence "The only mention of such a rule was added in 1994 with the URAA in 17 USC 104A, which automatically restored copyrights on many foreign works, unless these works had already fallen in the public domain in their country of origin on the URAA date, which is January 1, 1996 for most foreign countries" in this paragraph [[1]] that public domain in Sweden [PD Sweden Photo] also means public domain in the USA. This regulation is also stated in this tag: [PD 1996] Photos before 1969 only had 25 years of copyright in Sweden. So they became in public domain in Sweden 1994. So, therefore, I would say that this photo, also should be in PD in the USA. --Tore Danielsson (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Link to where it is written about the old law in Sweden about 25 years after publicity, which Tore mentions. Adville (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop contributing to this discussion here. For those unhappy with the outcome, see COM:UNDEL instead. --P 1 9 9   17:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was ok to ask you to re-evaluate according to the fact that were not looked upon, because @Sealle: asked you here and you re-opened without any problems. What is the difference now? According to @Tore Danielsson: the Swedish laws were looked upon wrong (assuming 50 years when it was 25) and therefor it was not judge in a correct way. Adville (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Special rules for friends and admins on Commons? I really wondered what I wrote above because you are the one keeping and then when a friebd asks you to reopen you do without hesitation and delet the picture without looking inte the laws (maybe trusting him?), but when confronted you did a misstake from an admin from another wiki you say "go to UNCOL" instead if you are unhappy... why not just take a look into it again? Adville (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Adville: COM:AGF. This has nothing to do with friends or admin status. When I originally closed the DR, I only looked at the consensus that the image was from before 1969, but User:Sealle brought to my attention that I had overlooked the copyright status in US. But since you are bringing more new arguments, it is indeed the right procedure to bring it to COM:UNDEL. --P 1 9 9   14:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation, and excuse me to be so eager to get a reply. This is the first conflict I've been involved in on commons (started on svwp by sealle with revenge deletions here). Therefor it looked strange when he proceeded (without contacting another admin in the first case when he said he would, but forced you to answer here...). We will go to that page and ask for undeletion because, as @Tore Danielsson: said we need a case where it is stated "this is how it works with Swedish pictures before 1969".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adville (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Request[edit]

Dear 199,

I don't know how to use a talk page so apologies if this is incorrect, but you are the administrator who closed a deletion request, here, as kept. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rachel_Kushner_March_2015_in_Z%C3%BCrich,_Switzerland.jpg

One administrator argued to delete because the photographer who submitted the photo, and took it, was the person submitting the deletion request. Another administrator, who argued the photo should be kept, used the reasoning that it was the only usable photograph of this author, but in fact there is now, on wiki commons, an excellent and authorized photo of this author. The photo under review doesn't look anything like the author, and was taken backstage after her reading. She was not aware her picture was being taken, and this was in Switzerland, where consent must be granted to take and publish photos. Lastly, the photo is so distorting as to be defaming. You can see that she has no idea the photo is being taken, and the photo looks nothing like her. On your contribution, you write "in use." But the photo is only in use because it was previously the only photo on wiki commons. Others have tried to swap this awful photo for the legal one that looks like her, but wikimedia seems to switch it back for some reason. Finally, the photographer who took and uploaded the photo to begin with was, again, the person who submitted the deletion request, so there's no dispute there. He also doesn't want this photo on Wiki Commons. Please help. Thanks. Rosepoussiere (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

it's quite strange that a professional photo that looks like the author was immediately deleted, and a harmful terrible photo taken with no consent remains for the world to see ... thank you for adding supportive commentary to deleting the awful image. But I wonder why the useful and accurate image was deleted, since the photographer herself put it on the commons? 107.184.36.135 00:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Appeal request[edit]

Hi, my request is about this debate : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rougier_(Montlaur,_Aveyron).jpg

I am currently trying to delete all the data that the Internet has about me and one of the great concerns I have is this picture because it contains very personal and sensitive information (such as the place where it was taken !). That is the main reason why I would like it to be deleted. But, apart from this privacy aspect, the picture is of low quality and there are other pictures of the Rougier de Camarès on Wikimedia Commons : I am sure it would not be a big loss.

Sorry for my english and thank you in advance for your answer.

SbBTW (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @SbBTW: There is NO personal and sensitive information here (the place where it was taken is a public area, not private or personal). Not a valid deletion reason. --P 1 9 9   12:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LosBanos71stAnniversary2016 invitation.jpg[edit]

Hello P199,

Thank you for your notification about this photo/image that I uploaded here in July 2016.

This is regarding the request to delete the File:LosBanos71stAnniversary2016_invitation.jpg on this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:LosBanos71stAnniversary2016_invitation.jpg .

I saw a comment which is ~ "Advertising, unusable and out of scope."

Please do not delete the photo and please include it in the article "Raid on Los Banos" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Los_Ba%C3%B1os) because it is related and definitely relevant to the page.

Here are the reasons on why this photo should NOT be deleted:

1. It is not advertising. It is a historical commemoration of the 71st Anniversary of the Raid of Los Banos in 2016. In World War II history, this is the greatest rescue operation that took place in modern war history. For that reason, the University of the Philippines (UP) Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines, commemorated that day to honor the war heroes and rescued civilian prisoners of war. The purpose of this photo is historical education and not advertising. You will see the logo of Philippine Veterans Bank and UP Los Banos in the photo because they are the sponsors of the commemorative even in 2016. It is not advertising because this was a free and public event and open to all. As stated in the photo, they had a FREE film showing of the movie that tells the story of the "Raid on Los Banos". The movie is "Unsurrendered 2". This film is always shown for free in schools and government offices.

2. It is also not "out of scope" nor out of topic. As mentioned above, this is most relevant for the subject matter "Raid of Los Banos" because the background is the photo of Baker Hall in UP Los Banos, Laguna in 1945, after the prisoners of war were rescued. Baker Hall was the headquarters of Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines during World War II (1942-1945). The field around the Baker Hall was the prison camp of 2000+ civilians (mostly Americans) who were all rescued by the Filipino guerrillas. The rescue operation is called "Raid on Los Banos" in history books. That photo reinforces the story being discussed in the "Raid on Los Banos" page in Wikipedia where I incorporated the photo.

3. As for photo ownership (the photo of Baker Hall and event poster), it was created/owned by University of Los Banos, Philippine Veterans Bank, and the family of Col. Gustavo Ingles -- the Filipino guerrilla/World War II hero who planned the whole rescue operation in 22 Feb. 1945. There is no copyright license or limit because the photo is free for public use and for historical education.

4. Additionally, this is a historical commemoration of a great sacrifice and heroism of many Filipinos, and thus this photo is an important commemorative event on a national and cultural level. Years from now, if researchers will see this photo, they will know and be able to validate that such a chapter in world history is indeed significant and real.

5. This poster honors all the survivors and heroes of the "Raid on Los Banos". There are many survivors of WWII in the Philippines who are still alive today (but might not be alive in a few years from now) and they remember this event or were one of the fortunate 2,000+ civilian prisoners who were rescued in Los Banos. Some of them are now in the United States and take time to visit the Philippines just for this event. This photo/poster means a lot to them.

By the way, here is the info behind the photo which was mentioned in the article "Raid on Los Banos": "On 22 February 2016, the 71st anniversary of the Liberation of Los Baños was held at Baker Hall, University of the Philippines Los Baños. Part of the day's celebration included the free film showing of the documentary "Unsurrendered 2" by Director Bani Logroño, Spyron-AV Manila."

With all those reasons mentioned, please do not delete the said photo.

I am sorry if I was unable to include a reference when I first uploaded the photo in Wikimedia Commons. I am unfamiliar with the process. Sorry. I will add it in the link now.

For reference of the photo and its owner, here it is:

Photo credits: University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna https://www.facebook.com/UPLBOfficial/photos/a.249477533994.139460.186654778994/10153474775878995/?type=3&theater

Thank you and please don't delete the photo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary fairy8 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 March 2018‎ (UTC)
@Mary fairy8: In reply:
1. Yes, it is advertising. Advertising for a historical commemoration.
2. While the event may be significant, the image itself has no educational value other than advertising an event, that took place in the past. Therefore this image serves no purpose and is out of scope.
3. Proof is needed for copyright status. The provided link does NOT give a free license. Therefore this image actually qualifies for speedy deletion!
4. This has nothing to do with the image itself.
5. Commons is not a "Memorial" site. There are other websites for that. On the other hand, if you had uploaded photos that you took yourself of the event, that would have been in scope.
If you have other comments, please post them at the deletion discussion itself, not here.--P 1 9 9   13:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 支那魔鬼習近平[edit]

I am from Taiwan. I have trouble asking for reservation because the content of the picture is very meaningful. Thank you! --223.136.64.242 04:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SWALLOWTAIL, PIPEVINE (Battus philenor) (7-12-11) 78 circulo montana, patagonia lake ranch estates, scc, az (9420694281).jpg[edit]

Hi P199, it seems to me that you just deleted the file that we wanted to keep, and that the wrong file had already been deleted and redirected to the correct one. Is this indeed what happened, and is it possible to restore the file? Thanks --LamBoet (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you re-delete some images?[edit]

A few months ago you closed Commons:Deletion requests/undefined170225, and deleted 7 or so images. They got re-uploaded. I asked the uploader about them: User_talk:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao#Commons:Deletion_requests/undefined170225 and it seems they have nothing against the images being re-deleted, as they were counting on the tool not re-uploading them. Could you? --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

✓  Done --P 1 9 9   23:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
WikiThanks.png --GRuban (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Fake Tag Delete[edit]

@P199: I fully denied all copyright accusation against me and all been resolved.. should been waived off. The recent copyrights speedy deletion (was too abrupt) had not gave me any details prepare to dispute or easy way to appeal the copyrights.. All being resolved and no warning should even place during issues being resolved. And not my last warning because all dispute had little participation only bots. I already reported my confusion issue to another Admin. BusriderSF2015 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: You can ask to undelete the images at COM:UNDEL. If you really are the copyright holder it should not be hard to prove it. Upload the deleted images in full resolution complete with EXIF data. If published previously, you will also need to submit a OTRS ticket, see COM:OTRS. Regards, --P 1 9 9   13:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

about saint-francois-dassise mrc avignon[edit]

Levé_du_soleil_dans_la_MRC_avignon.jpg

Low quality and grainy photo of non-descript scenery, little educational value, out of scope. Unsure about the copyright status as well, considering all other uploads by this user were already deleted as copyvios

if you dont like my picture you can erase it

but if i understand correctly it's better to dont load a picture on wikipedia because you gonna be refuse it even if i took the picture myself and i'm the author Alex1989mtl (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 19:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52: As requested: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30478819@N08/29015406976/ --P 1 9 9   02:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! --Mdann52talk to me! 11:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Philippine Stock Exchange Center.jpg[edit]

Hello,

My photo of the Philippine Stock Exchange Center.jpg was deleted due to copyright violation. It was my mistake that I did not include the copyright on the webpage where the photo is hosted.

I have added the copyright to the page as you can see here: http://stockstreetblog.com/stock-market-hours/ I would like to request this image be restored as it has the appropriate CC BY 4.0 attribution.

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsch45 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rsch45: Thanks for contributing to Commons. The right way to restore the image is to ask for it at COM:UNDEL. Regards, --P 1 9 9   01:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Testpagina foto upload Ipad weergave.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Testpagina foto upload2.jpeg[edit]

Your closures of these two RfD's are highly unprofessional, when not to say abusive. The concerning files are still not properly attributed, there is WP logo and an other picture, both not owned by the screenshot uploader. The argumentation "just fix it" is not a reason to keep. The uploader is responsible for the correct licensing + attribution, not me. I am going to reinstall the RfD's. Please refrain from this kind of closures, as it otherwise may become an issue for COM:ANU. Thanks. --A.Savin 16:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Respectfully disagree. Like I said: the images are clearly compatible with Commons. It is an obvious "keep". To nominate these for deletion is just wasting everyone's time. It would be no different than starting a DR for errors in the description. --P 1 9 9   16:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
We have clear copyright policy like COM:Licensing and either is a picture properly licensed according to this policy, or it is not. If second is the case, the picture has to be deleted. It is right that I may do the necessary fixes, but I must not. --A.Savin 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Tuborg beer made in Turkey

For the good work in Commons. --E4024 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@E4024: Many thanks!!! But I don't think everyone agrees, see above. ;-) --P 1 9 9   16:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with all your decisions either, see Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Okanyes.jpg (fresh from the oven :) but that does not mean that I will not appreciate your good work. Enjoy your beer. --E4024 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
That's kind of you. I appreciate it. Thanks for your efforts at Commons as well. --P 1 9 9   16:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Carzing.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests[edit]

Hi P199,

Appreciate your effort for your notification about this photo/image that I uploaded just May 11, 2018.

This is regarding the request to delete the File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carzing.png that is now in a debate for Deletion Request.

I saw a comment which is - "Unused promotional logo, no educational value, out of scope"

Please do not delete the photo, it is my first time to create a Wiki post, I have uploaded the image first prior to its content.

I will be uploading the content on Carzing today, I never thought that it would be best if I uploaded the content first instead of image and left it hanging for a few days. My sincerest apologies and it will never happen again.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtepace (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Baraja de UNO.JPG[edit]

Just checking how to update the PD tag for this image, after it was kept at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baraja de UNO.JPG (as the current "released into the public domain by its author" is not correct). Is {{PD-shape}} the correct rationale for the public domain status of the packaging and card designs pictured, with an additional template noting that it is {{Trademarked}}? --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Yes, that seems correct. Thanks for following up on this. --P 1 9 9   19:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Municipal Annexe, Liverpool 30 April 2013.jpg[edit]

Are you serious? Only image of interior? Interior of Municipal Annexe, Liverpool says otherwise. This would be a useless image of the interior even without the over-exposed person. Please reconsider. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: I completely overlooked the subcategory. Yes, that changes my opinion. The overexposed person blocks the interior view and makes the image rather useless. Regards, --P 1 9 9   17:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Cheers! Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Gohar Gasparyan[edit]

Hi. I think Category:Gohar Gasparyan could be made a disam page; but as I am not sure of the importance of each lady, one a historical figure, the other an actual one, I will not get in there. Any Armenian Commoners listening us? --E4024 (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi E4024. I know nothing of Armenian personalities, can't help here. Regards, --P 1 9 9   15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User:P199[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
User:P199 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 user page, 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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Gregozphotos (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Social sofas in the Netherlands[edit]

Hi, P199. What do you think, do categories in Category:Social sofas in the Netherlands have correct name? Taivo (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Taivo: "Social sofa" is a neologism. Not sure if this has caught on in the Netherlands. The subcategories are in Dutch. As per COM:CAT and COM:LP, it should be in English. For example "Social sofa's in de provincie Drenthe‎" should be "Social sofas in the province of Drenthe‎". Actually, "the province of" is superfluous, I would drop it altogether and just have "Social sofas in Drenthe‎". --P 1 9 9   16:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

BildBenutzer.png[edit]

Hi @P199:,

BildBenutzer.png claims to belongs to the Antu icons (an SVG icon theme in flat design). This is obviously false, so the authorship and the license are fake. A previous deletion request has already been classified (too hastly, in my opinion). Can we reopen the subject? Thomas Linard (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas Linard: We don't reopen a previous discussion. Just start a new deletion nomination. But it is not enough to only say that the "authorship and the license are fake". What is "obvious" to you may not be obvious to others. Please add detailed reasons why you think so. Thanks. --P 1 9 9   12:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@P199: OK, thanks for your answer, I will do that. Thomas Linard (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)