User talk:Themightyquill

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Themightyquill!

Contents

Image:Can-pacific-banff.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Can-pacific-banff.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

GeorgHH 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:12_pont.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Save_Sacco_and_Vanzetti.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Your photos[edit]

Hi, thank you for your compliments. Your photos are also awesome! --Nikater 09:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: .gif > .jpg[edit]

Should be fixed now. Unfortunately you'll have to redo the relevant uploads. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 5767f8ace32f38cf0fd3232081c99ca9[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Image:Chermoula tagine.jpg[edit]

Hello,
If you change the description, I have no problem to add the category. Regards Moumou82 (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your uploads from Flickr[edit]

Could you please tell me what you where thinking by uploading e.g. Image:Leffler - WomensLib1970 WashingtonDC.jpg and Image:Leffler -1968 WashingtonDC MLK riots.jpg with the FlickrUploadBot. Did you believe that the bot can read the image description and thus will know that this image is not by the Flickr-user and not under the licence the flickr-user selected. For your information: a bot can't read that kind of information. For that you need a thinking human, one who uploads this image with the correct attribution and licence. -- Cecil (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 27e9f02e54bbcd965fc867cb95e38374[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Image:Wooly_Mammoth-RBC.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Wooly_Mammoth-RBC.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

jonny-mt 02:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Image:Kofola bottle.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

--Vantey (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Louise Fréchette.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:Image:Louise Fréchette.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Martin H. (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token c5344fbde81d2e0184914e97aa4db8f1[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

transferring source info?[edit]

hi, I have been transfering them with s bot. I f there is missing info I need to stop! Which image in particular? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Ok quill, what can I say I have transfered about 1000 files and these two, I can only suggest they never had any source info and perhaps I was mistaken to transfer them, these two files have no links to any page. I need to know what if anything I did wrong as I intend to move more files, so if you can explain I would be grateful. thanks (Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

I will not transfer any more files until this is cleared up, best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

did you see the comment on my talk page regarding these files by Quadell? (Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

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 bokmål | 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, Themightyquill!

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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.

BotMultichillT 03:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

Dear Mightyquill, thanks for your work, but I don't quite understand why you removed the categories that I found for my picture File:Libélo-Valence.jpg: it is about bike sharing, therefore belongs in Category:Bicycles and Category:Transport in my humble opinion. SInce this service is provided by a firm, it belongs as well in the Category:Industry, don't you think so? If you don't give me elements against it, I will put these categories back.

Thanks, regards, Christian.Mercat (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

CC[edit]

Hi Themightyquill, I noticed you started using Commons Commander. As I use it regularly, if you need help with it or have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me. The alpha-version still has a few bugs and sometimes gets stuck, but overall I think it's quite useful. -- User:Docu at 22:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I started a page about it at Commons:Tools/cc. -- User:Docu at 10:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Map[edit]

Look, I could care less to be honest, but are you oblivious to the fact that the blue doesn't make it clear who annexed it? Mnmazur (talk)

Just because you made the image does not give you the sole right to edit it. And please, mind the attitude, you're not being very civil. Mnmazur (talk)

I don't quite get it[edit]

Could you provide an explanation for why you removed all these categories? Thanks, cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Aww, shucks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NHSC[edit]

Hi. Sorry for the delay in responding. Patriotic pride wasn't my intent -- I just used the symbol I thought logically could be used as a marker (the stylized beaver used by Parks Canada is presumably copyrighted). But I'm not trying to be jingoistic -- I appreciate you letting me know you know that's how it came across. Any suggestions? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries - the question was fine, and I am glad you raised it. Someone when one does something, one doesn't notice all the implications until someone else points them out. I agree that I should replace the maple leaf, because I don't want to create a precedent for patriotic icons on various categories. I kind of think a marker is helpful (although maybe it should like to Wikipedia articles, using LangSwitch, rather than simply to the parent category), and a marker been used for the French monuments historiques for some time (see, for example, Category:Château de Brest). Other heritage designations, like the Dutch Rijksmonument or World Heritage Sites have full templates with designation numbers - since NHSC aren't assigned numbers, and the designation categories aren't well known, I thought a full template here was a bit overblown. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

People of / People from[edit]

Hello. I do think that the current category tree is a bit of a mess, because there is no rhyme or reason whether it is "of" or "from". As you know, it's consistent for Canada, except for Vancouver (all provinces → "of", all cities → "from"), but not across the board (e.g. People of Ontario, but People from Wisconsin; People from Toronto, but People of London). Are you interested in making changes just to the Canadian cats, or to the whole category tree? If just Cdn., I wouldn't oppose a switch of everything to "from" (except perhaps for "People of Canada", as then there would be a consistency problem with other countries). If across the board, there are several possible solutions, which could include:

  • People from [country, region/subnational entity, city, neighbourhood] (standard format for everyone)
  • People of [country, region/subnational entity, city, neighbourhood] (same approach)
  • People of [country], People from [region/subnational entity, city, neighbourhood] ("of" for countries, "from" for everything else)
  • People of [country], People of [region/subnational entity], People from [city/neighbourhood] ("of" for countries and provinces, "from" for municipalities, etc.)

There are other variations, of course, but those seem to make most sense. I may be worth raising at COM:CAT. What do you think? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, note this discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for initiating all the necessary moves. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see you're using the {{move}} tag - I might have been less cautious and just listed them at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, but your approach is probably the right one. When I get the chance I will help you tag 'em. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Did you mean to do this? I didn't want to revert it, because maybe I am missing something. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Furrier in Wurzen Bennewitz 01 Album Seite 01.jpg[edit]

Hatmaking. If you do not want it under "hats", you should find a better category, not only delete hats?! --Kürschner (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see, it's ok. --Kürschner (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...[edit]

Could you please explain this edit?

Category:Wm. Lyon Mackenzie is the category for this fireboat. Geo Swan (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Macko_Sajt.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Macko_Sajt.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)‎ | +/−

Simonxag (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Art of/Art in[edit]

Hello. As is so often the case, the art categories are inconsistent across the board. Having been categorizing so many monuments and memorials this past year, I've found most categories are "Art of". It didn't occur to me that there should be a different convention for cities, although maybe that should be the case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified?[edit]

In what sense are File:Rainier Beer - filling bottles - 1900.jpg and File:Rainier Beer - bottle storage - 1900.jpg "Unidentified beverage bottles"? They are beer bottles, and already categorized as such. Even the brand is not in doubt. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Similarly File:Rainier Beer - washing bottles - 1900.jpg and File:Rainier Beer - tinfoiling - 1900.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and it's a matter of my poor wording. See my response on the CFD. - Themightyquill (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Tesco juice.jpg[edit]

Can you explain this edit? I don't see any problem.--Sevela.p 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you kindly hold off on the speedies?[edit]

At least let Commons:Deletion requests/File:A 4 Litre Cask of Australian White Wine.jpg run through to see if there is consensus to overturn the Foundation lawyer's opinion on the matter. If this good faith request is not workable then please AfD them rather than speedy. Agne27 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, as long as you put back the copyvio tags you removed if that deletion goes ahead. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Blank map of Europe in 1920[edit]

Hi, Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page about File:Blank map of Europe in 1920.svg, unforunately I just don't have the skills to work with vector graphic images and have screwed up one way or another every time I have tried to alter them. If I were to give you an accurate version in png format could you translate it into svg? If you can't can you direct me to someone who can? Thanks, Maps & Lucy (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why deleted ?[edit]

Hello. You deleted Cécémel_assortiment.jpg. This is a picture I took myself at the request of the contributor Avatar (here's the proof!) representing different bricks, cup and glassware of Cécémel in possession of the inn of the en:Gourmet Museum and Library where I free work.

I don't understand why you deleted it. And why pictures in Coca-Cola or Category:Lipton (tea) or Category:Jupiler_beer can stay...

The picture shows packagings of Cécémel as sold by supermarkets and grocery stores in French-speaking Belgium and typical cup and glassware used for this product in the coffeehouses of Belgium to serve this drink. There are therefore objects of common utilities and packaging just as common...

So I thank you to restore this picture.

Sorry for my bad English, --Égoïté (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wine images & fair use uploading[edit]

Hello "quill", in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gewürztraminer SGN 1989 label.jpg you suggested that I upload the image in question as "fair use" instead. Thanks for the encouraging suggestion, but since I'm a contributor to several language versions (as Tomas_e), I usually don't bother with uploading to English Wikipedia only. Regards, Tomas er (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Venuswein.jpg[edit]

Hi, I answered here, thank you --Marinelli (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

American Indian vs. "Native Americans in the United States"[edit]

Why did you do this? I am American Indian and I do not like the term "Native American" to describe us. Anyone born in the Americas (For example: someone named Schultz born in Argentine is a "Native American") is a Native American. Are you an official of Wikipedia? Was there a discussion at Wikipedia about this change? Has Wikipedia decided that this is the official opinion of Wikipedia?

When I enter my photos (many of which had their category changed due to your apparent efforts) as American Indian in their category, I mean it. If someone wants to ALSO ADD it to another category, that is up to them.

Philkon (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Phil

Category:American Indian (Difference between revisions) Revision as of 17:56, 6 June 2011 (edit)


Latest revision as of 14:39, 12 June 2011 (edit) (undo) Themightyquill (talk | contribs) (Native Americans in the United States)

- Category:American indian "categoryredirect|Native Americans in the United States" Latest revision as of 14:39, 12 June 2011


Category:People by colour[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:People by colour 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)‎ | +/−

ZH2010 (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested in helping organize a potential Canadian component of the 2012 edition of Wiki Loves Monuments? I am compiling a list of people that have varying degrees of interest in pursuing this. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Great! We'll talk early in the new year. Have a good holiday. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. If you are still interested, please visit Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 Canada. Cheers, Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


Copyright Norway vs USA[edit]

Thanks for your feedback regarding Vigeland pictures. Do you know if the US 95 year rule really applies to pictures objects in Norway? Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopia pics[edit]

Dear Themightyquill, thank you very much for taking the time to evaluate these pics, I appreciate that. I recall that some were already deleted for the very same reason, since these are batch uploaded and I did not mean to break any rules but evidently we must have missed some. You might also ask for speedy deletion because they were not meant to be uploaded, of course, citing that criterion and this message, if you will. Also feel free to skip notifications if this helps :) --Elitre (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Szalasi at people's court.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Szalasi at people's court.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 21:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | 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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:CBC-radio-intl.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:CBC-radio-intl.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)‎ | +/−

JuTa 12:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Doukhobors at outdoor meeting.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Doukhobors at outdoor meeting.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)‎ | +/−

JuTa 12:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Boysenberry-gate.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Boysenberry-gate.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)‎ | +/−

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thermal baths[edit]

Why do you think this removal is correct? Orrlingtalk 20:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I removed it for two reasons. One, it was redlinked. Two, I don't think of human-constructed thermal baths as being nature. I just checked and Category:Thermal baths is not a subcategory of Category:Nature (nor is Category:Hot springs, for that matter), and Category:Thermal baths in Germany is not a sub-cat of Category:Nature in Germany (nor are other similar thermal baths by country x categories). I hope that makes sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, neither is a reason. :/ First and foremost, hotsprings/thermal baths and about anything that has to do with geological phenomenae is hard for me to think of as not directly related to nature; that equivalent categories other than Budapest haven't yet been aligned to this obviousity is clearly not warranting that those very-famous thermal baths of Budapest be off-derivation of the city's nature... And no, red links as parent cats are not omitted because they are red. Eventually there'll be enough content and Category:Nature of Budapest will be created. Cheers. Orrlingtalk 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, they're both reasons, but I see you don't agree. Again, it's not just equivalent categories for other cities: Category:Thermal baths is not a subcategory of Category:Nature and neither is Category:Hot springs. It doesn't make sense to just add it in this one case. However, all the other equivalent categories AND Category:Thermal baths are categorized under Category:Geothermal features so I've added Hungary and Budapest's thermal baths to that category. Good compromise? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course Category:Hot springs and Category:Thermal baths are subcategories of Category:Nature. Where do you think they both go uptree? Category:Springs >>> Category:Bodies of water >>> Category:Landforms >>> Category:Nature. This would be so unbelievably strange if "Hot springs" weren't related to "Nature", don't you think? The problem now, as I see it, is that you've apparently created a category – Category:Geothermal features in Budapest – whose sole cause was to contain that one single item we're talking about, and, unlike "Nature of Budapest", it has quite obviously nil growth prospect... which makes it rather useless. If you know how the categorization principle works, you may know that this is a less helpful solution, not to say odd (there is no "Category:Geothermal features by city" while there is Category:Nature by city) and even if it does exist, it can't evade the "Nature of"-parent, itself... I'll appreciate if you undo yourself and discard the uncustomary, unnecessary "Category:Geothermal features in Budapest" replacing it with Category:Nature of Budapest, which will soon after be a blue link for at least that one concern. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it's far stranger to have a bunch of photos of buildings in a subcategory of the category nature. Yes, they have a connection to nature, but they are hardly photos of nature, any more than a drinking fountain or a wooden desk is a photo of nature. I've created the reasonable sub-categories including Category:Nature of Budapest. If you want to propose deletion of Geothermal features of Budapest, go right ahead. Thanks for your help on this matter. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It isn't the buildings that are the nature, it's the encyclopedic fact that these are primarily related to an ever-throbbing subterranean natural activity. I wouldn't bother to categorize Swimming pools as subset of Nature, would I? And finally, when it comes to nature-in-cities, most elements are man-modified/processed which doesn't efface the nature kernel of them i.e. parks. Cheerz Orrlingtalk 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm glad it worked out though. By the way, are you sure there aren't any geothermal features in Budapest that haven't been turned into thermal baths? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Budapest boasts of its nature just for these baths, so I don't see where the disagreement is. Advise you to have a look at contents of random city's nature categories so you fetch an idea on the wide range of things that qualify as urban nature. To your last question, I assume with most probability that "geothermal features in Budapest" has no value other than embracing the one cat you created it for. This makes that parent as odd enough to be unwelcome, and we generally avoid constructing categories unless we know they potentially have more than one child. Orrlingtalk 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't understand why you won't accept that my view has at least some validity. There's a difference between "things that use nature" and "nature." Category:Painters from Hungary back be tracked through Category:Colours to Category:Nature. Painters use colours, and colours are a natural phenomenon. I have no problem with that line of categories, but that doesn't mean I think Category:Painters from Hungary belongs in Category:Nature of Hungary. For a less extreme example, Category:Windmills in Amsterdam isn't listed under Category:Nature of Amsterdam. I understand your point of view, and I've found a solution that seems to suit us both, but your instance that you are 100% right is starting to look like bullying. I'd appreciate if you'd let the conversation end here.- Themightyquill (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the Category of a photo for the Pausilipo[edit]

Hi,

I do not understand why you change a perfectly valid category ("Monuments of Los Santos Province") to a description (Finca "Pausílipo" del Doctor Belisario Porras) which does not constitute a category, but the name of the monument... If you want to create "El Pausilipo" as category, it is clearly a sub-category of the previous one. Changing the category by a specific name of the monument does not make sense to me... specially since is done only for this monument. The name of the photo clearly specifies already it as "El Pausilipo" and there is no need to change a useful general category. So I will undo it until you explain the change..

use of your picture Pinot Blanc grapes[edit]

Hello, I would like to make you aware of the placement of your photo (a section of, rotatetd) on my website:

http://www.rhc-weinkontor.de/Seite-/-Kategorie/Weissburgunder

Hope you like that. Thanks + best regards --Holger Casselmann (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Bathroom v Toilet[edit]

You have created a lot of new categories that just don't make sense. A Bathroom should have a bath, but you seem to be applying the term to Toilets. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

El Pausilipo[edit]

You mentioned in my talk page:

Hi Vsanchez,

I'm not sure I understand the problem. There were a great many photos in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Los Santos Province. Some of them were clearly named and categorized, some were not. So I created sub-categories for many (five in total) of the specific monuments in that category and made them subcategories of Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Los Santos Province. See Category:Iglesia_de_San_Atanasio_(Los_Santos) for example. I also created Category:Finca "Pausílipo" del Doctor Belisario Porras‎ for that specific monument, and placed images of that monument in that category. The category is a sub-category of Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Los Santos Province. You have removed some but not all of the images of that monument from that category. Because Category:Finca "Pausílipo" del Doctor Belisario Porras‎ is a subcategory of Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Los Santos Province, no image should be in both categories. Commons now has 8 images of that monument, so I don't see the problem with the monument having its own category. I'll wait to hear from you again before I add them back into their category. Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

My answer:

What I do not understand is why you ELIMINATED the category "Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Los Santos Province" completely. I am not against creating sub-categories, and I agree with you if that is what you are doing. However, eliminating the "Los Santos Province" category limits a more general search. So, it is ok to add the new category without eliminating the old one. That is my opinion.

El Pausilipo[edit]

My apologies Themightyquill, i did not understand wikimedia category system.

File tagging File:Monitor National Marine Sanctuary .jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Monitor National Marine Sanctuary .jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

1989 11:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Renaming[edit]

You'd marked some files to rename. But I think the new names are not correct. Why "ErkelSandor-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg", not "Erkel-Sandor-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg" or "Erkel Sandor tomb Kerepesi.jpg"? The new names should be possible to find them in the search machine, isn't it? Wieralee (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I made administrative descissions about these renaming requests. Themightyquill, you have undo them. You don't have the right to to this. You can talk to me, to an other Sysop or you can request my descission. So there are many ways. You made the only step that is impossible. So you will undo this. Your request was not valid. You gave no valid reason and the new names are terrible. If you don't do it by yourself, I will do it and I have to treat you as a vandal. Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: - I've made 38k file edits on commons, successfully requested many file moves, and I've never been treated with such condescension and threatened by an administrator. Could you tell me where to complain about your behaviour, your interpretation of COM:FR and your comments above? Thank you. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in how much you've done - only in what you have done here. And you don't have to undo administrative descisions. Administrators are elected for those descisions! Can you imagine, what happens here, if everybody acts in this way? This is called anarchy! There are a lot of ways you could react. But you chose the only imposible - and this for not only one image. Maybe you should think about, that you maybe made mistakes? And you did not show any respect! Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to chime in, but I would have to agree that Themightyquill does not appear to have done anything to merit the above comment by Marcus Cyron. I've only looked at the one cited above, File:Erkel Sandor-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg, but TMQ did have the right to make the request, provided a rationale, and the proposed move seems logical. Maybe there is a language issue here, caused largely by my inability to speak German, but if there are other cases where the move did not seem appropriate, then I would have thought one would civilly have a discussion on the merits. I'm perplexed as to why TMQ would be treated as a vandal. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: - hello? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The request were not executable, as far I have ssen it. I can be wrong. But then we have to talk about it. Themightyquill simply undo my descision. And this is impossible. In this manor we can't work together in such a project. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I accept your right to refuse my original request (although I think you are incorrect in your reading of COM:FR), but that doesn't address your behaviour afterwards. I have every right to make another request for a move while providing further rationale (that's what I thought you were asking for, since I hadn't originally filled out the optional field). As an editor, I am not required to accept the decision of one administrator as totally final. As an administrator, you are still obliged to assume good faith and treat others with at least basic respect instead of condescension. You do not have the right to order editors to do something. You do not have the right to threaten to treat an editor as a vandal for edits that were quite obviously done in good faith. You don't have the right to scold other users with renaming rights for responding to a move requests without checking the whole edit history of the image. It's that kind of behaviour prevents us from working together on a project. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron:, thank you for responding. I have a few comments:
  1. You were entitled to decide that insufficient rationale had been provided for the proposed moves. Themightyquill was entitled to respond by providing additional rationale. That's how this project is supposed to work - collaboratively. @Wieralee: was subsequently entitled to review and implement the proposed moves.
  2. Themightyquill did not "undo" your decision. You identified what you believed to be an inadequacy with the proposal, and he responded to your comment with additional details. He was entitled to do so.
  3. Your messages to Themightyquill and Wieralee on their respective talk pages were inappropriate. In particular, threatening to treat Themightyquill as a vandal, when he had done nothing wrong, was offside.
  4. It is unclear why you seem to think that you and Themightyquill cannot work together.
I don't want to make a mountain of a molehill, but I can fully understand why Themightyquill found it troubling. I will be proposing a minor change to Commons:File renaming to provide additional clarification for situations such as this. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Gottermayer-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Gundel-familytomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Salga-familytomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Schöffer-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Hoffmann-familytomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Kamermayer Karoly-tomb-Kerepesi .jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Schenk-familytomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Lotz Karoly-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Blaha Lujza-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Kilian-familytomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Eisele-familytomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:WatterichOdon-familytomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Egyedi Arthur-familytomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Martinovics Elek-familytomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Treichlinger Jozsef-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:Vasarhelyi Pal-tomb-Kerepesi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen Deine Bearbeitung an der Seite File:FesteticsGéza-tomb-Kerepsi.jpg wurde von Themightyquill rückgängig gemacht. (Änderungen zeigen) vor 5 Tagen -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So? You said there was missing rationale. He provided additional rationale. His actions were appropriate. Your subsequent response to him was not. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Schoch Frigyes[edit]

Regarding...

I had put the year of death as 1924 on these because that it what was stated in the Creator template (I couldn't find a source for it). If the correct year is 1944 could you please fix Creator:Frigyes Schoch? Thanks. Revent (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Russian_Federal_Security_Service_designated_terrorist_organizations[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Russian_Federal_Security_Service_designated_terrorist_organizations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Sanandros (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

{bad name} vs. {rename}[edit]

Hello, Mighty Quill,

Your discussion page seems quite busy, so I assume a lot of people read this advice of yours:

"Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}"

In my humble opinion this is not quite state of the art. Rather than re-uploading the {{rename}} template should be used. What do you think?

By the way, two months ago you changed the {{FoP-Hungary}} template on my picture File:Vajdahunyad, Anonymus 1.jpeg to {{PD-old-auto-1923}}. I am not exactly a young person but I certainly took or published no pictures before 1923, so I assume you mean the sculptor of the monument. But this picture is not a 2-D copy of a 2-D work of art but rather a two-dimensional picture of a three-dimensional work of art, which is influenced by several factors, such as angle, perspective, light. So I think the picture is essentially under the license I granted to Wikimedia Commons.

I do not really care, as I do not make a living from photography, but I'd be interested in your opinion. If you care to answer please do it here with {{Reply to|Aisano}}.

Thank you and best regards, -- Aisano (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Aisano:,
Thanks for your message and very good questions. Firstly, you're right - if someone doesn't like the name of a file, they should generally rename it instead of deleting it. The message at the top of my talk page, however, is not my own. It's a template that gets posted to pretty much everyone's talk page when they join commons. It has been improved since it was posted on my talk page back in 2006, but never updated. I'll fix it now, just in case.
The answer to your second question is slightly more complicated. I'm no copyright expert, but I'll do my best. There are three potential copyrights at work with that photo, your copyright to the photo, and both the American and Hungarian copyrights of the artist (Miklós Ligeti) to the sculpture. As I understand it, we need them all to be copyright-free to be uploaded here at Wikipedia. You uploaded your photo under a creative commons license (CC-BY-SA) so that takes care of your rights. As for Ligeti's rights, this particular sculpture was produced in 1903, and anything published before 1923 is Public Domain in the United States. But there were still his Hungarian copyright to worry about. Because Ligeti only died in 1944, 70 years had not elapsed since his death when you posted the photo (March 2013), so his artwork was still under copyright in Hungary. Luckily, you indicated (with the FoP template) that, because the statue was mounted in public, that Freedom of Panorama applied, even if the statue was still under copyright. So you did everything right. Since you posted it, however, another two years have gone by, and it has now been over 70 years since Ligeti died, and the sculpture is now public domain in Hungary, and so there is no longer any need to claim FoP. I hope that makes some kind of sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt and complete response. I was just a bit worried by the formula "[t]he author died in 1944, so this work is in the public domain…" as in the {{Information}} template I denoted myself as the author. I now think, however, that the {{Artwork}} template is the way to fix that, because there Ligeti is the "author", and I am the "source". Hadn't thought of that before. -- Aisano (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AWB[edit]

Aloha! I just added you to the mighty AWB-users. Clin Best, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Baden Revolution[edit]

Can you review it, please?
Have a nice day :-) Wieralee (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks. Problem solved. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Paintings by something...[edit]

Hi Themightyquill. First: I see you have changed or created a lot of categories of Paintings by country to Paintings by country of location. I don't know if this is necessary or useful. Can you tell me please your reason? Second: if you create a category by something (by period, by city, by country, by date, by century, etc.) you create a Metacategory, that means that this category must contain only other categories and not files. So it's necessary that you add the template of the specific metacat, so that this category ends up in the maintenance flat list too. It's very important. It's not difficult. You write on the top of the category {{metacat|something}} (e.g. {{metacat|country}} or {{metacat|location}} or {{metacat|century}}, etc.) If you have a double parameter (e.g. by century by country) you put both in the template (in this case {{metacat|century|country}}). Can you please add the template at all metacategories that you have create? You can find the list of all the flat lists here. I repeat: it's very important for the maintenance of all these kind of categories, that they are in the specific flat list too. Thank you very much. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DenghiùComm:. Firstly, I'm going to assume good faith that your message style suffers somewhat from language differences or cultural style, but in the future, please know that repeating yourself as you did comes off as extremely condescending. Not a great way to communicate effectively. Second, as far as I know, I didn't create any new category trees, I just extended the pre-existing structure of Category:Art by country of location and Category:Paintings by production area into categories that weren't properly sorted. So... you're welcome? Third, thanks for the reminder about metacat. If you look back through my contributions, you'll see that I spent a bunch of time adding that template to categories that had been incorrectly added to Category:Categories by country manually. No need to explain its use or stress its vital importance - I simply forgot. I'll add them asap. Best, Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Themightyquill. I don't think to fully understand what you mean in the first part of your answer. I speak a basic level of English, so it is not easy for me to explain something, and I must often use the translator. If I offended you in some way, I apologize, it was not my intention. Back to our categories, I found a mess in these categories of paintings of Belarus between from categories and in categories. IN and FROM are not the same. "In" means that a artwork is in this country; "from" means that the artwork was made in this country, but now it is outside, in another country. What I found is that all kinds of "in"-subcategories was placed at the same time in "in"-uppercategories and in "from"-uppercategories. This has no sense. And this not only for the paintings categories by century, but also the categories of paintings in the Museums in Belarus was put in both categories: "in" (ok) and "from" (absurd!). If a painting is IN a Museum IN Belarus, why to put it in the category FROM Belarus? It has no sense. I began to correct these mistakes, but I quickly stopped, because I have seen that it was not sure that the paintings categorized "from Belarus" was really outside or perhaps "in Belarus" too. You made a big work to change the categories in "country of location", but have you looked before inside these FROM categories? I have the impression that the most part of them simply have a wrong name, i.e. that in theyr names it was used wrongly the form "from" but really they are all "in". This is the problem. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
These painting categories are indeed a mess, partly because English is confusing. Many of the categories on wikipedia use "of" which is not clear. For instance, Category:Art of Belarus could include art from anywhere but currently in Belarus, and art originating in Belarus but currently elsewhere. So, as you noticed, there has been some effort to split "of" categories into "from" categories and "in" categories. I suppose because it's a lot of work, it hasn't been fully completed, and as a result, both images and sub-categories have often been placed in the wrong parent category. Even building a complete category tree for each country, city, year, style, etc, would mean creating thousands of categories, and each of those categories can have huge numbers of individual images. I could individually check each image to see where it belongs, but that would take me a lifetime of work. I'm hoping if I work to create all the proper categories, others will eventually help re-sort the images appropriately. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. If you want to understand better this system, you can look at Category:Art of Italy, it's a model for all people. If you need to change the name of some categories, you can tell me, and I do it (if it is correct). I am a file mover. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC) P.S.: we had this mess in the categories of Italy too, but thanks to some users, step by step they made order, and now we have a system that is apply in categories of many countries. If you look at all work that is to do, it is daunting; if you look at the single categories, you can do it, one day one category, another day another category. Finally you will see that all the work is done. Let you help by some user of Belarus that love art and architecture. Last but not least, when you have finished the work, you see suddently how many artworks from Belarus was stolen, or looted, or lost during the centuries. A complaint to the whole world!

Tirana Museum[edit]

I think the images of interior are not eligible for NO-FOP violation, they are just plain rooms with museum exhibition inside. Please open a discussion before deleting, thank you --Sailko (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Heritage hotels[edit]

I noticed you've added some buildings in Belgium to the category "Heritage hotels". Please note that "hôtel" in the name of a building does not mean it is/was a hotel: it may refer to hôtel particulier / hôtel de maître, which are big residential town houses of the aristocracy or bourgeoisie, or "hôtel de ville", which translates in English as town halls. Henxter (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Henxter: Oops! You're right, of course, but it didn't occur to me while I did my search and added categories. Sorry! - Themightyquill (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

facade of Muzeu Historik Kombetar[edit]

Hi, sorry to bother you, you recently had a picture of said museum in Tirana deleted. It seems that Albanian copyright laws do not forbid the use of such pictures if not for commercial use. Isn't this sufficient for wiki commons? Thanks. --2604:2000:C54F:E500:EC93:6271:C1A7:227F 07:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

For better or worse, no, that isn't sufficient for wiki commons. Commons:Licensing policy says that everything has to be freely available for commercial use too. I hope you see this message - please consider signing up for an account, as it makes communication much easier. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

*** Feliz año! *** 2016! ***[edit]

* * * Feliz Año 2016 ! * * *
* Feliz Año Nuevor!
* Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année!
* Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr!
* Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом!

Deseo que este nuevo año venga cargado de bienaventuranza para ti y para los tuyos. Un año nuevo lleno de muchos nuevos retos que yo estoy seguro conseguirás superar. Te he dejado este video, con un mensaje positivo, lleno de esperanza y amor. De mi, un Venezolano que te aprecia. Saludos --The Photographer (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Local government districts of England by county‎[edit]

As they are clearly on exactly the same topic I have just been bold and merged them anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry on a 2nd look you appear to be suggesting to delete them both, if that was then feel free to revert me. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: No worries. Being bold was fine. I think they could safely be deleted since nobody is likely to type those category names in on their own, so if you want to tag them each with {{Bad name}} instead, you're welcome to, but it doesn't matter too much. Best, Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see "Local government districts of England by county‎" is a reasonable redirect, for example "Borough Council wards of Ipswich" is used but that is probably less precise anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Cfd actions[edit]

Hi Mightyquill, I made up Category:Cfd requests with missing discussion page yesterday. Maybe you'll find there some cfd entries you've been involved in. And a happy new year! --Achim (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Several of them are my fault. Moving or redirecting without archiving leaves the cfd template, but without a working link. I'll archive these properly now. Thanks for drawing them to my attention! - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
For clarification: It's not archiving. If a cfd request is closed the cfd tag has always (except the category gets deleted) to be removed from the category page, no matter if it is kept or moved. Unfortunately that has to be done by hand (afaik), a small gadget would be helpful I think... --Achim (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I just thought step was done at the same time as archiving, but it should be done at the same time as closing. I will do from now on, but I expect there are some CFD tags I've left on closed discussions which have now been archived. I'll take a look. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Category Barnstar.png The Category Barnstar
in appreciation of your tireless work at CfD. --Achim (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Quacks - a question :)[edit]

Hiya - I just need someone to help me out here & hope you can: I'm just wondering what you reckon the difference is between Category:Charlatans and quacks and Category:Quack doctors? Is a "quack" not always a "quack doctor"? And would they not just be called "quacks"? I'm not sure why it was bundled with "Charlatans" (this seems odd to me anyway)? I was going to redirect Category:Charlatans and quacks and Category:Quack doctors to Category:Quacks (to sit in Category:Quackery? Or would redirecting to Category:Quack doctors be clearer? An opinion is appreciated - Thanks in advance. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deadstar: I'm no expert (pardon the pun) but I think that quack and charlatan are essentially synonyms. The only difference is that, while they both can mean imposters to any skill/profession, "quack" has a tendency to refer to imposters of medical skill. So if it was necessary, one might put "quacks" or "quack doctors" as a sub-category of both "fraud" and "medical profession" but "charlatans and quacks" might only be a sub-category of "fraud." That said, it's quite possible that all the media in Category:Charlatans and quacks related to medical frauds/imposters, in which case you could safely move everything to Category:Quacks. You might even move everything in both of those categories to Category:Quackery since Category:Samuel Solomon is the only actual person category listed under either category. But it might be worth opening to discussion. Maybe those who created the categories have some clearer vision, even if it isn't currently reflected in the contained files. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that - so the differences are very subtle. I'm being BOLD & have adjusted to what seems a little more logical to me and have Category:Quacks redirect to Category:Quack doctors and for that to be inside Category:Charlatans and quacks (seeing there seems to be a distinction). I don't think we'll be able to tell from the images what's what unless you go into serious research mode. I'm going to move all images of persons from Quackery to Charlatans and quacks. Thanks again & Kind regards, -- Deadstar (msg) 10:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

New cat[edit]

Hi, just FYI: I made up a new cat Category:Category maintenance and recategorised the cat maintenance stuff there. --Achim (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)