User talk:Tm

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

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

Contents

File:100Years 6371 (8435664221).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:100Years 6371 (8435664221).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ww2censor (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Highly Suspect[edit]

Hello Tm, how are you? First of all, thank you for the images of Highly Suspect you have uploaded, they are great. I wanted to use one of those images but I couldn't. I am a user of Spanish Wikipedia (sorry for my poor English) and I just created the article of this band, but I couldn't use your files, I don't know why. Could you help me? --Santi Cba (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Julio da Luz (4916705607).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Julio da Luz (4916705607).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rodrigolopes (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

nombres de categorías[edit]

Hola, bom dia: Según la política de nombres de categorías en Wikimedia Commons, las categorías deben ser nombradas en inglés y no en el idioma del lugar de las fotos. Disculpa que te escriba en español. Puedes contestarme en portugués --DPC (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Não é bem assim. Veja "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form" em Commons:Categories#Category_names e esta prática também é ussda nas categorias de países francófonos e germânicos. E também é impossível dividir os monumentos portugueses por feguesias, pois se existem 308 concelhos portugueses e a categorização já é difícil para oncerca de 4/5 utilizadores que os mantém regularmente (e que chegaram a esta categorização pela prática e discussão), com as freguesias a serem 3092, seria seja um pesadelo de categorização, pois se juntarem a estas categorias temos as por distrito, por grau e as por género. Tm (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Entiendo y comparto lo que me dices sobre la imposibilidad de asignar cada foto a una freguesia. Sin embargo, no comparto tu interpretación sobre el nombre de las categorías. Por ejemplo, «Necrópole medieval do Vascoveiro» o «Cruzeiro em Lamegal» no son nombres específicos, sino genéricos, completamente traducible al inglés, como podría ser «Cathedral of Palencia» o mejor «Cologne Cathedral», pero las creas en portugués. Yo creo que no se debe hacer así, aunque franceses y alemanes (y españoles) lo hagan. No voy a discutir ni cambiarlas.
Gracias por mantener y crear nuevas categorías, sé que es un trabajo duro. Cuando termine de subir fotos de esa zona (Pinhel, Figueira de Castelo Rodrigo, Vila Nova de Foz Côa y Mêda) te aviso por si quisieras crear algunas más. --DPC (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Tm and @David Perez: I got a ping from @Hedwig in Washington: Could you explain me what the problem is in English or Spanish? I don't understand Portuguese. Thanks. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: and @Cookie: there were two questions: one is already solved, and it is whtat I said to Hedwig in Washington about deleting a Category I created. I created the "Category:Classified monuments in parish of Pinhel" which was deleted as duplicated of "Category:Classified monuments in Pinhel". Pinhel is a municipality but a parish too, so I thought it could be a good idea to make it. TM showed me that it's impossible to create a category for every parish in Portugal. I do agree.
The other question is about naming categories in portuguese. I created some categories of places and monuments in Portugal with English titles that were changed into Portuguese by TM. I told him to name them in English but he argued " 'Particular individual object uses a singular form usually' and 'Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form' as they do in French and German languages too". Then I answer that neither "Necrópole medieval do Vascoveiro" (medieval necropolis of Vascoveiro) nor "Cruzeiro em Lamegal" (wayside cross in Lamegal) are specific names but general names and they also are names perfectly translatable into English. These are two examples, but there are more: "Category:Church of Our Lady of Annunciation, Leomil" changed to "Category:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Anunciação (Leomil)", "Category:Metellos Manor House in Pinhel" to "Category:Solar dos Metelos", "Category:Church of Our Lady of Annunciation, Leomil" to "Category:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Anunciação (Leomil)", etc.
Finally, I thanked TM for creating and making maintenance of portuguese categories and I told him that when I finished uploading some photos of Pinhel and surroundings, I'll ask him to create new categories if necessary. And, with different words, I said to both, TM and Hedwig in Washington, that I do prefer to use my time on uploading photos to Wikimedia Commons than arguing about categories, so that's why I said "I don't mind the —in this case, IMO, and not only— portuguese categories mess". But, obviously, I do prefer a well ordered and standardized system of categories ;) --DPC (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem here seems to be the interpretation of the policy. One of the exceptions to naming a category in English is when it's referred to a particular individual object, such a specific building, monument, etc. With this premise on sight, if we tried to translate Category:Casa dos Bicos into English it'd be a mistake, since it is indeed an exclusive building. But a "igreja" is not, no matter if the church is devoted to a certain saint, or a certain advocation, it's just one among many others and the same happens to "necrópole", "cruzeiro", "aqueduto" or any other common names. There's a real mess in Portuguese categories, but the issue isn't new. It was treated here some years ago. In my opinion all these categories should be renamed. That there are German, French or Spanish categories named in their own language is not a reason to replicate the error as a rule. I'd like to read @Hedwig in Washington: opinion on this and see if something can be done. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Esta categoría que acabas de crear «Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Assunção (Pinhel)» ¿no sería mejor llamarla «Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Assunção em Lamegal (Pinhel)»? Está claro que Lamegal se encuentra en Pinhel, también en Guarda, y creo que ese nombre dará lugar a confusiones. Por supuesto yo creo que el nombre correcto sería «Church of Our Lady of the Assumption, Lamegal» --DPC (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nâo. Veja forma como as outras categorias de igrejas poruguesas estão criadas e verá que não é assim. E o nome é sempre em português, não inglês Tm (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Sí, veo que muchas otras categorías de iglesias portuguesas están creadas así, es decir, no siguen las políticas de Wikimedia Commons, están también mal creadas. Imagínese que rusos, chinos, ucranianos... creen categorías en su idioma y grafía, sería imposible encontrar nada. Por eso las directrices de Commons piden que se escriban en el idioma franco: inglés. Otra cosa son las páginas, esas pueden ir en cualquier idioma y grafía. Debería reconsiderarlo. --DPC (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Seguem as regras como disse acima, ou acha que franceses, alemães, belgas, holwndeses ou suecos estão errados? Curioso como ninguém se preocupa com os nomes das categorias dessas línguas, inclusive nativos dessas línguas, mas já com os nomes portugueses e espanhóis muita gente se preocupa. Porque será?
¡Porque portugueses y españoles somos más serios! ;) de todas formas, preguntaba por incluir Lamegal en la categoría, pues hay al menos tres iglesias más de Nossa Senhora da Assunção en Pinhel: Alverca da Beira/Bouça Cova, União das freguesias de Atalaia e Safurdão, Lamegal y Valbom/Bogalhal. --DPC (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the two of you should agree to disagree. We probably won't be able to do any serious improvement in the Portuguese categories anytime soon. In general, I agree with Cookie that the Cathedral categories should be renamed. But I won't start a world war about some silly categories. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Silly categories? world war? IMO, this is not a good sysop answer. --DPC (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, these categories might be as silly as the French, Spanish, German or Chinese ones. The discussion here is about naming categories according to policies so, as we have more civic ways to solve something than starting a war I've put them into discussion. Let's read some other opinions on this issue. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Obey (6405257643).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Obey (6405257643).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Found5dollar (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Ellen Rosenblum.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:File renaming, criterion #2 states "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays." Flickr ID isn't necessary for image identification. MB298 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • This criteria of "meaningless or ambiguous nameas" as nothing to do with flickr id as this is clearly labeled as ambiguous names as "building in my city" or meaningless as "photo" not the flickr id. Tm (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

categorías para fotos[edit]

Como te dije más arriba, he subido fotos de Pinhel, Figueira de Castelo Rodrigo, Vila Nova de Foz Coa y Mêda, por si quieres pasarte por aquí para crear nuevas categorías (aunque no estemos de acuerdo en cómo nombrarlas). --DPC (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

u reverted my edit of pic[edit]

Participants with the Water Warrior class perform squats prior to entering the pool at Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan, July 6, 2011 110706-M-VD776-004.jpg

Hi... i had cropped this pic and also increased its brightness. U reverted my edit. Actuly id removed the African American lady from the pic as she was not exactly in a squatting position, which is what the pic wanted to show. So plz dont put her back by reverting my edit. As for changing its brightness, u can do so if u wish.

Please see Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Substantial_crop_or_un-crop as this crop is substancial, overexposed. So if you want upload your version under a new filename. Tm (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24535862682).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24535862682).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24644205935).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24644205935).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24016046994).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24016046994).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24562123021).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24562123021).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24348752260).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24348752260).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24348786120).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24348786120).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24348806390).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24348806390).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork and Ann (24017572433).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork and Ann (24017572433).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24017476553).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24017476553).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Madeira - Hotel Calheta Beach, Calheta - the parrot show (24013558744).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Madeira - Hotel Calheta Beach, Calheta - the parrot show (24013558744).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24535938172).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artwork (24535938172).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artworks (24618145376).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Calheta - Casa das Mudas Art Centre - artworks (24618145376).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Avro Tutor, The Shuttleworth Collection. (12075193575) (2).jpg[edit]

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 | українська | 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, File:Avro Tutor, The Shuttleworth Collection. (12075193575) (2).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!

Leoboudv (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of the content of your talk page was archived[edit]

Hello Tm, I archived some of the content of your talk page (from 1 January 2015 to 29 December 2015) to User talk:Tm/Archive 6, because the template include size has exceeded. When the template include size exceeds, new templates added on a page will not work. So I advise you to watch your talk page's parser profiling data. Thanks! Poké95 11:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Avro Tutor, The Shuttleworth Collection. (12075193575) (2).jpg[edit]

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 | українська | 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, File:Avro Tutor, The Shuttleworth Collection. (12075193575) (2).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!

Poké95 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Nudie photos[edit]

Hey, what's with the knee-jerk response. Sure I made a couple of dodgy additions but you even undid one where I added "without any clothes on". What exactly did you find unacceptable about that? The woman is naked ie without clothes on. On another photo, you restored the words "Adeea nude perfection". What the holy crap does that mean? Can you find it in yourself to check what someone has written before your digital knee kicks out? 188.29.164.129 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I accept the bit about vandalism and I'm sorry I did that (it certainly wasn't maliciously intended). That still doesn't explain why you feel it is ok to change back good descriptions? 188.29.164.129 18:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I just don't get it. Is this a power trip for you? What part of those descriptions is pornographic? How do you justify descriptions that aren't descriptive? I admit that I made those sexist remarks because I didn't know whether to take your descriptions seriously. Do you get a prize for doing this? I'm at a loss to understand why you are in charge of this website. 188.29.164.129 18:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
As you said you vandalized the descriptions and then made sexists remarks. If you still dont understand why you got reverted and who is really being childish and knee jerking reacting by opening 3 different discussions, i cant help you, so dont edit this discussion anymore, as i dont have the time or patiente to stand your antics. Tm (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:130601 Blasmusikfest 12 (8914909441).jpg‎[edit]

The next one Tm, because these arms are the originally FN - I worked with there - these are not the reproduced Sturmgewehr --K@rl (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Revert in Category:Transport in Spain[edit]

Dear Tm, please do not repeatedly revert edits, which are not clear vandalism (see w:Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary). If you have any questions regarding certain edits, you can always ask the respective user on his/her discussion page. In this case, the Category:Transport in Europe is not applicable to all of Spain, since the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla are clearly not in Europe. Hence, the categories concerning the autonomous communites, which are in Europe, are sorted accordingly.

Thanks --MB-one (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Spain is an european contry, so this is the correct category. Tm (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You are both partly right and wrong. Spain is clearly a bi-continental country. Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands might be European in culture but all three are geographically in Africa. Why not just put Cat:Transport_in_Spain into both Cat:Transport_in_Africa and Cat:Transport_in_Europe? There is no strict rule that says we can't use more than one continental category, otherwise what would we do for Russia, Turkey, Egypt etc? FredWalsh (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Renaming of File:Map of the portuguese and spanish railways.jpg[edit]

Thanks for having reviewed and explained the reason for the decline. I'd request to do the renaming anyway, because:

  • the content of the file is in German
  • it is part of a German encyclopedic work dating 1912, you can e.g. review the source of the image in question to convince yourself
  • you may keep the English filename as a redirect to the renamed German filename, no need to remove it
  • the work the file has been taken out of has it's own category, and the category name uses German language as well - see Category:Enzyklopädie des Eisenbahnwesens - in a distant future the cat's name may be pulled from the category's wikidata object to deliver native translations for category names, but this is not of today..

I'd strongly submit to rename filenames to English, if the content is in English or language neutral (because it's the main language used on commons), but this is not the case here. If English descriptions in the File: pages do not suffice, then there can be file redirects with a derived English name for any of the files. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting image rename[edit]

Can I ask why you reverted this image move without explanation, putting File:Women in sunglasses with US flag.jpg back at its apparently unclear title of File:America the beautiful (6079822929).jpg? --McGeddon (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Nude_portrayals_of_YouTube_logos[edit]

Damiens.rf 20:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

File:26 Prêmio da Música Brasileira (18710819271).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:26 Prêmio da Música Brasileira (18710819271).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Revent (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Bryan Ferry (6891697798).jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Bryan Ferry (6891697798).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

And also:

Yours sincerely, FredWalsh (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2016 (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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, FredWalsh (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements[edit]

Hello,

Could you please discuss your (unexplained) rationale for this revert Mohsinpathania (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2016 (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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, –Totie (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Imagem[edit]

Olá, como vai? Você indicou corretamente a fonte dessa imagem? É que ela está marcada para eliminação e eu acho que seria uma pena apagar. Érico (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Hi Tm, I've removed the "Unidentified buses in X" category because most of the files are unidentifiable and some have been incorrectly placed under that category (IE: You've reverted me here yet it's impossible to identify the bus just by the side railings!),
Some files are so small that's it's not even worth bothering with and those that are bigger and are of good quality are either blurry or fuzzy .... so thus either way all are unidentifiable,
Plus it doesn't help when they've sat unidentified for the past 7 years .... IMHO if they're not gonna be identified now then they never will be....,
Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 15:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Holsatiae tabula generalis in qua sunt Ducatus Holsatiae, Dithmarsiae, Stormariae et Wagriae (8343681384).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Holsatiae tabula generalis in qua sunt Ducatus Holsatiae, Dithmarsiae, Stormariae et Wagriae (8343681384).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Kopiersperre (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

IP's vandalism...[edit]

Hello there !

I guess that IP (86.168.219.170) is the same person hidden behind two other IPs (86.156.81.219 and 90.217.244.189) wich have been blocked because doing the SAME deletions of cats categories...

--LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Except if there is a one in a million change, per the Duck test, the same person is behind the IP as they have the same kind of edits on the same exact images, or in other words. Also they seem to be uncommunicative. Tm (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Llann Wé², cats? Did you mean cars? 92.40.249.128 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@92.40.249.128: no, I meant categories (of automobiles in this case) because, on Commons, no one uses cars in cats (categories), only automobiles or vehicles (or trucks for some).
One more... 86.156.80.193. Always on the same kind of vehicles. Pffffffff... Thanks a lot for undoing their changes Face-smile.svg. --LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 20:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Boeing 727-233 FedEx N265FE Dan Cooper View SNF Setup FLAirMuse 15March2014 (14606412313).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Boeing 727-233 FedEx N265FE Dan Cooper View SNF Setup FLAirMuse 15March2014 (14606412313).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Attractive asian model on a boat. (6772356299).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Attractive asian model on a boat. (6772356299).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Triplecaña (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Drop dead gorgeous model on a boat. (6772365697).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Drop dead gorgeous model on a boat. (6772365697).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Triplecaña (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Tasty Chinese model on a boat at the beach. (6772360467).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Tasty Chinese model on a boat at the beach. (6772360467).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Triplecaña (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Voluptuous model on a boat. (6772371695).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Voluptuous model on a boat. (6772371695).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Triplecaña (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Tm, it's Scott here, thank you for your comments on COM:AN. 46.47.77.38 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but i commented the attitudes of JCB, not your attitudes. You, before the banning did a lot of very important and crucial work (administrative or not), possibly more than anyone in Commons (except perhaps Fae), but since your "misterious" banning by our new overlords, some of your attitudes are, in my opinion, very disputable or even indefensible, even taking into account the "misterious" reasons for your banning (not in this particular case, but some previous cases). Tm (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:86.164.129.50[edit]

Hi TM, something has to be done about this vandal, I don't know how to do it. Would you mind making the necessary arrangements? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lisboa[edit]

Look: it is a redirection only. It should be empty... Wieralee (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  • And that is what i´am doing by placing them in proper categories, before you intervined,. But if a redirect is full, there are bots for that kind of work, not user editions. Tm (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Classic cameras graflex speedgraphic medium format, 1 (3393629814).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Classic cameras graflex speedgraphic medium format, 1 (3393629814).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

NotaBene 15:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Prostitution laws[edit]

Now, paying for sex is illegal in France ([1] [2]). Can you edit this image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prostitution_laws_of_the_world.PNG)113.190.46.130 01:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Country specific consent requirements[edit]

@Tm: If my edit summaries for my reverts are unclear please discuss, there is a sufficient body of Indian superior court case law on the subject should you wish to research it. Thanks. Unfitlouie (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the case? It has nothing to do with photographing in public space. Also this IP is a troll as there weee and are several IPs and accounts that nominated this and other images to DR under false arguments and false profiles, arguing being someone they are not, mismatching laws, etc. Tm (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Please clarify : Which case and IPs are you referring to, and what false profiles / accounts / arguments do these correspond to ? I am in the dark about all of this. Unfitlouie (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So there was no case, no IPs, trolls, false profiles etc.? just swell. Unfitlouie (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So you were trolling ? Unfitlouie (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You really mus "be in the dark" and completly blind. So here are the trolls and SP accounts and IP, all that seem to "miraculously" know how to sign theyr names in their first post.
117.240.209.48, The IP that "miraculously" has two images of his\her son in a school and them has a photo of itself 1500 km away. Funny isnt it?
User:Tttrrrwww, a sockpuppet
182.156.90.58
117.240.187.35. Tm (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss specifics[edit]

From the citation you repeatedly reinserted link, kindly point out where it says

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with exceptions)
    thanks Unfitlouie (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
This kind of tendentious behaviour is uncivil and unacceptable on a collaborative project. You ignored my clear edit summaries and made unexplained reverts. You repeatedly reverted to insert a reference which does not support in any way the claims I have given you opportunity to locate therein . You deleted an impeccable reference of the Supreme Court of India's landmark judgment which declares privacy of citizens is a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution. This judgment is also cited as reference no.6 in the old link for this, and now you have the gall to proffer some tattered and confused newspaper article instead of the law itself laid down ? I am reverting your edits. Unfitlouie (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Right of privacy in a private setting, in a jail. This case doesnt make nay mention of photography in public place, yet i found a source that says that the rules of photography in public places in India are not fixed in your position, but are "According to police, in matters of public photography, the law is silent and there are no definitions. Although an implied consent exists in case of persistent or aggressive photography of an individual, it comes under the legal definition of harassment. "To put it simply , as long as the subject of the photograph doesn't have a problem, law doesn't step in.Cases are booked, based on the nature of the photograph,". So if you, as you claim, know that " there is a sufficient body of Indian superior court case law on the subject ", point to specific cases, with links to case docks, were the photographing of anonymous persons in public places in India are against Indian law. Tm (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Your "intermediate knowledge of English" badge buttresses your evident incompetence to distinguish the legal terms and phrases employed. If you do not understand the constitutional role of the Indian Supreme Court and the weight of their judicial pronouncements then please refrain from editing on this topic. The Supreme Court has laid down that there is a general presumption of an individual's privacy under Art.21 of the Constitution and which is now settled case law throughout India binding on all lower authorities. Since it is so important and its scope is not confined to persons who are in jail, I am reproducing this law for your understanding:
The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy."
The article linked by you actually shows that in India whereas one is not automatically barred from taking photographs in public places, taking photographs of identifiable people in public places is fraught with liability, and whenever the subject complains to the police the criminal law is invoked under appropriate penal sections. The term "law" as used in the article context describes the invocation of criminal law which is in addition to the right to sue for damages. In fact the recent judgments of high courts in India take the view that photographs of non-celebrity/non-newsworthy individuals can be published only if there is specific legal provisions to allow it - and even if there was previous contractual consent from the individual. judgment text.
Here is another news article for you to read. Unfitlouie (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes i understand perfectly well the legal terms and phrases, instead of throwing unrelated and\or irrelevant legislation. The role of a Supreme Court (and\Constitutional Court for that matter). You on other hand prefere to argument the persont that arguments instead of the arguments pf the person so again and for the last time "point to specific cases, with links to case docks, were the photographing of anonymous persons in public places in India are against Indian law.", instead of argumentum ad hominem. Tm (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You say i have a bad command of English, but it seems it is you that has difficulties in understanding a simple piece of text. This last news has nothing to do to what we are discussing. Quoting "were arrested today on charges of misbehaving with the crew and passengers of a Chennai-bound flight before take-off from here last night. (...) A wordy quarrel reportedly broke out, as the pilot also intervened and asked the trio to behave properly, police said. The three passengers deleted the pictures following the crew’s “request” but when IndiGo security manager “debriefed the passengers” to maintain decorum on board in local language, “these passengers got verbally profane and threatened the airline staff,” according to the airline. (...)". So the drunken three were expelled of the flight for being a nuissance, not maintaining decorum and quarreling with the air staff and passangers, after being asked to stop taking photos by a air hostess. In basic, arrested for breaking the peace and public order, sexual harassment, not for taking a picture in a public space. What basically this article is saying is the same as the one i quoted. Tm (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Your quote "A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical.", making that facts of states "family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education " is simply what most countries, even those that have very liberal laws about photography in public places, call the reserve of private life and have NOTHING about photography in public places. To put it in layman´s terms what photos in public places have that do with "matters (...) [his] privacy , of family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education", as there cannot, in 99,99% of photos, be anything derived of photos of anonymous persons in a public and unpersonal place.
Once more you try to put a smoke screen, as in the case you cite it says in their conclusions that "33) For the reasons aforesaid, the petitioners' challenge restricted to the threat of publication of their photographs is upheld. Publication of photographs in newspapers, magazines etc. neither being permissible in terms of the SARFAESI Act or the rules framed thereunder nor under any other rule/notification/guideline having binding effect, I further hold that the threat to publish photographs borders on extra-legal means to recover the dues. The secured creditors are, accordingly, restrained by a prohibitory order from taking such recourse". What is the SARFAESI act, but the The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, a law related with financial matters?
And per said law, the threats of publishing photos of debtors to recover debt is forbidden, as it border lines on extra-legal means but the use of photos in a debt colletion and photos taken in public places, but with so this has nothing to do, once more, with the taking and publishing images of people in PUBLIC PLACES. Tm (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Hi, Not everything in a photo needs identifying - The tram is the main subject of the image .... we don't need to be identifying cars, trees, tarmac etc etc,
You're also edit warring and should probably stop unless you want to be blocked,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, your the one that is edit warring, making two mistakes and not wanting to admit your errors, first by saying that the trams was in service was in service, when, to anyone that can read portuguese, it is clear that it was out of service, and second by claiming that the tram was the main subject of the image, when it is in a corner, and when the cars and church occupy have the same prominence. Tm (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Not true - The not in service part was my mistake and one I admit was a bad one, I disagree the tram is IMHO the main subject of that image .... –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
But the cars and church occupy have the same prominence. If you see the focus and, specially, the composition, you will notice that, being the tram a main subject, the cars are also main subjects, in the same level as the tram, and so meritous enough to be categorized. Tm (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree - To me the main subject despite composition is the tram but anywho us edit warring over it is pointless so I've self reverted. –Davey2010Talk 21:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
So let us both agree in disagreeing and stop this reversion vs reversion and carry on with other pressing matters and editions. Tm (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Haha if we can agree on something it's that we both disagree with each other .... That is genius! Face-grin.svg, Exactly there's more important things to do than to edit war over essentially 2 categories!, Anyways thanks for discussing it, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 22:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Review before using Croptool[edit]

Hi Tm, I just reviewed one of your recent uploads. It choked the regular review bot because it was a crop of a larger image. Next time, I recommend importing the full sized image, letting the bot verify its license, and then using the toollabs:croptool to create a derivative image. Thanks for your contributions, I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 16:15, 3 May 2016 (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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Green Giant (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to categorize image with super-category, when sub-category already mentioned[edit]

Hello. You made follow edit - Revision #196407794. It looks not correct one. Please pay attention that file File:P3079529 (6251169523).jpg already in the category Category:Arco Triunfal da Rua Augusta, so there is no need to add super-category Category:Rua Augusta, because sub-category Category:Arco Triunfal da Rua Augusta already in the Category:Rua Augusta. --Movses (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2016 (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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, FredWalsh (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories in English, articles in native language[edit]

Hi there,

just to point out that categories are normally kept in English to help most users navigate. Articles can however be kept in native language. See Category:Palace of Versailles for example. Thanks. Gryffindor (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

No, the policy is clear Ad-hoc translations of proper names are undesireble. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal and several other discussions related to proper names in the native languages. German countries, portuguese countries, french countries, netherlands have the majority of categories in their native language(s), and spanish countries and italian countries have a big part of their categories in their native language(s). Tm (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
No, if it's a smaller category then it could be in the native language as an exemption to the rule. However for categories of higher importance it should be in English because not everyone understands Portuguese. See categories Category:Saint Peter's Basilica and Category:Winter Palace for example. Or would you like to have Chinese categories in Chinese? Gryffindor (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
No, the policy, discussions and pratice contradicts your statements. Read them again if you must, but dont try to twist them to your convenience. Tm (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Reporting?[edit]

So you think you are a fighter againt censorship right? I know people like you, you are the boss behind the keyboards. At least show some respect to other people's work. I am the reason you see it, your beloved picture. - Avatar9n (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking? Using sandbox? Oh you are a professional commons user! I've been using this site for years (i won't use it anymore). Do you think i am vandalizing my own picture? - Avatar9n (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You think that, besides having the copyright of File:Mosin-nagant ecomare.JPG and the right to stop distributing this file under a free license, have the right to longer want it to be shared by others that, like Wikimedia Commons, received it under a free license as others have said Creative Commons licences are irrevocable delete your image CC-licence is irrevocable. Even so you insist in removing valid categories from this image even if other three users reverted your editions, that could be seen as vandalism and to the edit protection of the image and\or your account being blocked. Continue on this path and you will be reported in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Tm (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You can report it anywhere. Are you trying to prove you are professional at protecting the free licence? You are nothing but a geek professional at jerking off. - Avatar9n (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edit war. You did it deliberately. Then its your edit war. Avatar9n (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Call me what you want as it doesnt affect me, being that by your actions you prove that lacking valid arguments you resort to insult and immature writings. Tm (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) Pictures[edit]

The images in Category:Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) and in Category:Flickr images taken by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) should not be in both categories according to Commons:Overcat. I am going to take them back out of Category:Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) now. Elisfkc (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) No, one is a categorie to organize images taken by MTA, other to organize and subcategorize images related to MTA. One is hidden, other is not. There are not overcategorized. Your acts are uncategorizeing images, not improving them. Tm (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Media without a license as of 31 May 2016[edit]

Hi, are you aware that several thousands of your recent uploads are tagged for deletion? Jcb (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i am completly aware. But, alas, they are all in public domain as they were taken by the astraunauts of the Apollo program during the Apollo 7 to Apollo 16 and so should be marked and reviewed as {{PD-Nasa}} instead of being deleted. Tm (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Please make sure you do so within 4 days from now, to prevent deletion. Jcb (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Women's suit.jpeg[edit]

Hello.What is the benefit ofBackground Return?I think it is unnecessary --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 06.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 06.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 05.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 05.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 07.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 07.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Gilda Roberts @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 02.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Gilda Roberts @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 02.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Gilda Roberts @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 01.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Gilda Roberts @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 04.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 04.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 03.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 03.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Vivian Schmitt @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 02.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vivian Schmitt @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 01.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vivian Schmitt & Jenna Jane @ Salon Mutzenbacher 2010 01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Fixpol (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Pedro Caetano (duplicate)[edit]

@Tm:, atenção que o flikr2commons está a duplicar as imagens de Pedro Caetano. Ver Category:Photographs by Pedro Caetano (duplicate) --JotaCartas (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

File:9G4A3637 (27532216062).jpg[edit]

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I wish that COM:VFC would allow you to specify why there are concerns with the files, instead of simply notifying the uploader that there are some unspecified concerns with the files. The problem is that the listed files have inadequate file names. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Eastern Europe 1990 (4523835289).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Eastern Europe 1990 (4523835289).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hiddenhauser (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Eastern Europe 1990 (4524587600).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Eastern Europe 1990 (4524587600).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hiddenhauser (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Caterpillar Laurentians.jpg[edit]

Why did you remove the category Category:Lepidoptera from File:Caterpillar Laurentians.jpg? It was correct, and I was hoping that an expert could eventually replace it with a more precise category. Nigel David Allen (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Was cleaning the categories of some of my uploads and by mistake i deleted the Category:Lepidoptera from your file. I readded said category and sorry for the inconvenience. Tm (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Agnieszka Radwanska (19027292262).jpg[edit]

Hi. Why do you canceled my amendment of photos? My version is better than the original picture. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you blind or stupid? --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You stealthy overwrote a image perfectly good and in usein several with your version, claiming to be better, you got reverted (per policy) and instead of uploading your version under a new filename you stubbornly reupload your version. To end i reverted to the original version and uploaded yours under a new filename. But you, unhappy, fired this insult, showing that your probably looking at the mirror when you call others blind or stupid. Tm (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ariana_Fox[edit]

FredWalsh (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Category change DR[edit]

Dear TM,

Do you want to wait to adjust the Dominican Republic, I'm busy with (re) organizing. If I can not use my newly created category, I can not continue working. --Jos1950 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, as you are desorganizing other people work by deleting categories of images that should be in there, like removing categories of locations, dates of photos and type of photos (like B&W). Also the US never occupied the Dominican Republic between 1961 and 1965, as the Dominican Republic occurred only in in 1965 as you implied in Category:United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1961-65) Tm (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You can also discuss first before you block everything, everyone can make a mistake.--Jos1950 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
When you desorganizing other people work by removing categories of locations (Category:Santo Domingo de Guzman), dates of photos (Category:1965 in the Dominican Republic) and type of photos (Category:Black and white photographs of the Dominican Republic=, there isnt a lot to discuss. Tm (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If you upload images, you agree to the license used on Commons. This means that nothing is your property and anyone can use everything and / or modify.
If you give me the opportunity to make a few things findable all will be well because that is the premise "discoverable". Not everyone knows that in "Operation Power Pack" should be sought as the 1965 fight is wanted. Needless to place all images in various categories, a reference to the category with a pair of images is enough and the whole clutter.
You can make your wishes known, but you can not enforce. If you do not accept the Commons rules, you must understand the consequences. --Jos1950 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
As someone that has way more experience in time and editions in Commons, and so understands much better working in colaboration, its rules and pratices, contrary to what you claim your editions by removing categories of locations and type of photos make this images less discoverable, not more. Tm (talk)

File:Bad daddy 01 (13896555425).jpg[edit]

Hi, Tm, I was wondering if, in your opinion, the name of this file could be changed. "Bad daddy" is somewhat misleading to me. Face-smile.svg Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point yours. Done myself as i have filemover privileges. Tm (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Entering the world of Gotic age (7136829147) (3).jpg[edit]

Reventtalk 03:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:The king rises (7079554935) (3).jpg[edit]

Reventtalk 19:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lisboa I (6225598681).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lisboa I (6225598681).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-- Tuválkin 04:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:I[edit]

Category:I[edit]

Hi, Tm I was wondering why this file is categorized I. In the meantim, I added some more categories I think might be useful too. Thank you for your time. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

File:LIS - 201606 S1 - 32 (28514279781).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:LIS - 201606 S1 - 32 (28514279781).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Felipe Kitadai[edit]

Hey, I'm trying to partly clean up your mass uploads, but don't want to edit war. What is your problem with changing generic flickr names to reasonable ones? Materialscientist (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

First you are the one that moves perfectly good, clear and identifiable names in portuguese to cryptic ones, second because of your indiscriminate moves of files and categories i just lost 5 hours cleaning my uploads related to Rio 2016, as your edits made me lost on what files were of what as you with your moves from the uncreated Rio 206 only categorize said files by athlete, forgeting to categorize files by event, day and country. Thanksnto you instead of taking 20 minutes it took me 4 hours with your actions qnd now you want to continue with this disruption? Tm (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Rio 2016 - Boxe-Boxing. (28486298614).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Rio 2016 - Boxe-Boxing. (28486298614).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2016 (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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Rio 2016 Summer Olympics (29099371121).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Rio 2016 Summer Olympics (29099371121).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Plenário do Senado (28978056861).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Plenário do Senado (28978056861).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2016 (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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

uploads from Flickr[edit]

Hey Tm. First of all thanks for all the work you done during the Olympics in uploading photos from Flickr. Anyway I have 2 suggestions for you. Firstly please try to remember to add photographer categories like Category:Photographs by Jonas de Carvalho or Category:Files from Agência Brasil Fotografias Flickr stream. Secondly don't upload personal images or bad quality images. Thanks again, Tm Dudek1337 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Rio 2016, Olimpiadas no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (28657316772).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Rio 2016, Olimpiadas no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (28657316772).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Mz7 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

Hello. Notice, please, that categories in files should not be random or redundant. Photo of a frog Heleioporus does not need categories Unidentified insects, Myobatrachidae and Anura. Category:Heleioporus is enough. As far as I see, it concerns all your biological uploads. Stas (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Rio 2016. a33 51 (28897571145).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Rio 2016. a33 51 (28897571145).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Taivo (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:REPUBBLICA DOMINICANA (8423110813).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:REPUBBLICA DOMINICANA (8423110813).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jos1950 (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Final da maratona masculina dos Jogos Rio 2016 1039317-21082016- dsc2567.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Final da maratona masculina dos Jogos Rio 2016 1039317-21082016- dsc2567.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Materialscientist (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Judo at the 2016 Summer Olympics[edit]

The whole one event, like Category: Judo at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's 63 kg‎, happened within one day. If you wish to categorize by date, add the whole parent category, not individual subcats or individual files. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:AIRPOWER16 - Air to Air SK35C Draken (29366239356).jpg Reventtalk 11:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

re-directing Bars and restaurants in Silves[edit]

By re-directing Bars and restaurants in Silves to just to Restaurants you have narrowed the scope of this category. I don't think this is a good way to go as not all bars can be described as restaurants.Kolforn (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You create categories that mix completly diferent establishments (bares and restaurants are completly diferent, not speaking in mixing cafés up in the middle), do not connect with upper categories (except the location), create a paralel tree to already established category trees, so i downt understand to what are you complaining. Tm (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If you create a different category for each establishment like Category:Bars, Category: Café and Category: Restaurant you will create lot of work in re-organising many of the cities and towns in Portugal. What is wrong with grouping them together. On English Wikipedia the Category:Bars and restaurants is used a great deal. I am not complaining I am just enquiring as I see that you have set about change this category in other places. Good luck with that.Kolforn (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
No, what already exists in portuguese (and spanish, french, german, etc) is the segregation of categories in Category:Bars, Category: Café and Category: Restaurant. What you were making, anew is the way of creating duplicate categories, paralel category trees and duplicate work for other users. Tm (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the end of conversation with you!Kolforn (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[[:Category::Transport in Spain]][edit]

Hi Tm, please be advised, that not all parts of Spain are in Europe. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please be advised that Spain is a european country, so your constant attempts to remove [[:Category::Transport in Spain]] of [[:Category::Transport in Europe]] is unwarrated, as every category "in\of Spain" is under the correspondant category "in\of Europe". Cheers. Tm (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, Ceuta, Melilla and the Canaries are parts of Spain but not in Europe. So categories "xxx in Europe" don't apply to those parts of Spain. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
But all categories "in\of Spain" should be categorized under correspondant category "in\of Europe". Said territories of Ceuta, Melilla and the Canaries are\should be categorized under its correspondent territories (such as "in\of Africa", as are others such as "in\of France" "in\of Netherlands\Kingdom of Netherlands", "in\of United Kingdom". Tm (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

File:DSC 0106 (5151354125).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:DSC 0106 (5151354125).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:PRESS[edit]

I've reverted your edits to File:North Adams, MA - Press 07 (9372906523).jpg and File:North Adams, MA - Press 08 (9372904789).jpg. Both are photos of PRESS Gallery (in North Adams, MA), which is precisely what Category:PRESS is about. - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)