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

Marina Ruy Barbosa photo's[edit]

I don't understand the problem. I took the pictures at Paris.--LeoFaria (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

STOP[edit]

Stop blindly reverting other people, and insisting in adding unrelated categories, as you have done here. Your past behaviour is well noted here. If you have any justification for what you are doing, then explain it, otherwise you'll be reported (again) to the admin board.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Transsiberian Irkutsk (4376400845).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Transsiberian Irkutsk (4376400845).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

lNeverCry 00:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Upload of Korean photos[edit]

Hi Tm, on April 7th 2016 you uploaded about 30 files (from Republic of Korea Armed Forces?) without categories, can now be found at Category:Media needing categories as of 23 October 2016. Please help to categorize them. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I moved them by myself, please check whether category Category:Marine Week 2015 (Korea) is okay. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Snoopy Red Baron cartoon FLAirMuse 9Feb07 (15303308416).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Snoopy Red Baron cartoon FLAirMuse 9Feb07 (15303308416).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

G I Chandor (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Інфографіки стосовно стану реалізації реформ у Збройних Силах України (27938021561).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Інфографіки стосовно стану реалізації реформ у Збройних Силах України (27938021561).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

G I Chandor (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Let it pour (23732242490).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Let it pour (23732242490).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

— Ipoellet (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop this now[edit]

Stop removing those useful navigation links in Category:Gemma, that's stupid. Thanks. 2A02:2788:A4:32F:24F:4EFF:FE61:F5B9 01:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Nature of Albufeira[edit]

Hello Tm You have created the category Nature of Albufeira, then you have added four files of insect which specify in the title that the insects are images from Alentejo. Is there a discrepancy here? Kolforn (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not Albufeira, these files coordinates place the files in a static caravan park on the outskirts of Albufeira please do not revert these files back to Nature of Albufeira. Who ever up loaded them to Panoramio has not placed the correct coords for these file. There title says Alentejo.
This files are named also Algarve and the coordinates are in Albufeira. This same panoramio was in Albifeira in the same year. Dont try to pretend to know more than the panoramio user that took this pictures. Tm (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not pretending to know more than the original up-loader, I am just making an informed decision taking into account the incorrect information on other files that were transferred with these files. Can you please explain why the title of the files contain Insect "December Alentejo" and were transfered originally with multiple categories most of which you know were incorrect. These files are a mixture of wrong information and where transferred over to Commons with this list of incorrect category's, some of which you removed. They included - Albufeira, - 2013, - Albufeira,- best, -Distrikt Faro,- Ferragudo, - Jettcom- Macro Photography, - Luz, - Portugal, - Portugal - Sagres Lagos - Faro - Alentejo - Cabo Sao Vicente - Algarve, - Sagres, - Top Travel Photography. The coordinates on these files can not be believed as there are files from the same transfer such as File:Armação de Pêra.jpg from the same batch, and this has the coordinates 37.086577 -8.249288 which is clearly incorrect as this is Albufeira, and not Armação de Pêra, which the image clearly is! I do not wish to get into some sort of edit war with you. We are both working to improve Portugals covarage on Commons. I hope we can work things out together! I live in the Algarve so have a good knowledge of the area. Kolforn (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If as it seems you refuse to enter into dialogue with me concerning these four files I will assume that you now have no objection to me reverting these four files back to the Category: Alentejo Kolforn (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No. Dont try to put words in my mouth. This files were taken in Albufeira, period. The filename and location indicate that, and it is not your whims that will change that. Tm (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The file names also indicate Alentejo! period! Kolforn (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
And your insistence is epic, period. To say that you have sure that this images were taken in Alentejo, even say that "four files of insect which specify in the title that the insects are images from Alentejo" and "This is not Albufeira (...) There title says Alentejo", conveniently ignoring that :
1- The coordinates place this images in Albufeira
2-That the filename also says Algarve besides Alentejo.
You have ZERO proofs that this images were taken on Aentejo, and yet on a whim, you want this images to have been taken in Alentejo and all appoints to this images have been taken in Albufeira. You even claimed that an image taken by the same photographer was not Albufeira and yet you were reverted, and finally admited that this image was in Albufeira. Call that knowing well the were you live. Tm (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
As you can see I did revert this particular image back to its correct location of Category:Avenida 25 de Abril, Albufeira after some research. Unlike you I try to research all the images I work on. In the case of these insect why don't you try looking at where the coords place these insects? One of the images is on the concrete apron of the Busy swimming pool on Albufeira Municipal campsite. It is highly unlikely that this insect sitting on the branch of a tree would have been found there!. All the other insects are in a small area of this campsite. Judging by the discrepancies in the Co-ordinates of other images in this group it is open to speculation as to the accuracy of the coords. Kolforn (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I have had quiet enough of these silly games with you! My edits have all been done in Good faith. It is not worth any more of either of our time disputing four files about four tiny insects. Maybe they will be very happy to live in Albufeira from now on.

Categories for zoo animals[edit]

Hi Tm - when uploading pics of animals in zoos (e.g. File:Duisburg 20160702 MAP 8729 (29080235504).jpg), please remember most species have a "Category:Genus species (captive)" or "Category:Genus species in zoos" subcategory, which should be used, rather than the basic species category. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Categorization of files[edit]

Hi, Tm, this and some other images need categorization. Since you were the uploader, your help would be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Face-smile.svg Lotje 06:42, 11 February 2017 (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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Thank you.[edit]

Thank you by yours two votes.Anyway. Sincerily. Vicond

Praga vs. Prague[edit]

Hi, thank you for your great work with categorization of Panoramio files.

Please note that Praga is a district of the Polish capital Warsaw, while Prague (Praha) is the Czech capital. Especialy when the file name contains words "Warszaw, Poland" as here, the two sites whould be not confused, even though the Latin name of Prague is also Praga. --ŠJů (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:LIRR Signal Clearance (8459820770).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:LIRR Signal Clearance (8459820770).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Train2104 (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Delicious asian model with a great body leaning against a palm. (6775969659).jpg[edit]

Can you please explain the following action:

  • (Move log); 22:29 . . Tm (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Asian model leaning against a palm tree.jpg to File:Delicious asian model with a great body leaning against a palm. (6775969659).jpg over redirect ‎

That's a woman, not a soufflé, calling her "delicious" is kind of sexist. The page you moved it from had a suitably neutral name. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with @Mattbuck: here. This whole Category:Model at beach (Philips advertisement), and several other photos by the same photographer, include some “problematic” filenames. While language gap and good intentions may be argued to show that it was not meant to be as creepy as it comes across as, here’s a very good opportunity to do that kind of “improvement file-renaming” I cannot disagree with. (For the record, I believe that Tm reverted the renaming in this case not to keep the word "delicious" but the number "6775969659"; keeping meaningless IDs from source repositories in filenames upon upload is both discouraged by COM:File naming and yet routinely done in most Flickr uploads.) -- Tuválkin 14:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Billar (7476033032).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Billar (7476033032).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

JesseW (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Aberdeen Harbour Map 2013 (28236395202).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Aberdeen Harbour Map 2013 (28236395202).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

De728631 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Fátima files[edit]

The images of the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima and of the Angel of Portugal were originally posted to Flickr with version 1.0 of the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark; however, in order to keep them Commons requires a specific reason why those images are in the public domain. Please replace the templates with a proper public domain license template. All your Fátima files need this information. Can you edit them? Anjo Sozinho (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted content[edit]

Afrikaans | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | हिन्दी | magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | Nederlands | polski | português | svenska | українська | +/−


Hello Tm,

the following content you uploaded is not free and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Faro (33033011070).jpg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files which can be used for any purpose, including:

  • use in any work, regardless of content
  • creation of derivative works
  • commercial use
  • free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Transport catogorys[edit]

I do not wish to engage in a edit war with you, So in good faith can you explain why you wish to categorize a Bridge as a form of transport when it is quiet clearly a structure, all be it to carry some form of transport. You could say the same about a boardwalk or a staircase but they are structures built to facilitate Transport. Lets not fall out over this I'm sure we can come to some sort of consensus. Kolforn (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I will not waste my time to explain something as simple as how to proper categorize Category:Bridges, Category:Bridges in Portugal and all its subcategories. There is a consensus in previous categories, so no need to waste my time explain something as simple as this. If you continue trying to delete proper categories of Category:Bridges in Silves is your onus to proof that this categories are wrong, but what is bridge is for decoration? nuclear fission? or is it to facilitate transportation between two points? Tm (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification from administrators noticeboard as you are unable to work with me and resort to needless sarcasm, which is not done in good faith and helps no one. Kolforn (talk)

Please do not edite my Talk page again,

So stop adding what i never wrote in your talkpage. Tm (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You first moved the category:Bridges in Silves from Category:Silves to Category:Transport in Silves. You then decided to create Category:structures in Silves after I had asked you to agree that it was a Structure rather than a form of Transport. If you had been clear that this was your intention there would be no need for this bad feeling. Kolforn (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:MTA Bus Time on iPad (6751625899).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:MTA Bus Time on iPad (6751625899).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

(tJosve05a (c) 18:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:NYCB 6779 (6751625967).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:NYCB 6779 (6751625967).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

(tJosve05a (c) 18:48, 25 March 2017 (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 | Български | 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, (tJosve05a (c) 18:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Christ Church, Downend[edit]

A prolix essay is a not a fit caption for five photographs of Christ Church, Downend. Users of Wikimedia Commons need only to know what an image is, so that they know to what uses they may put it. Repeating the same discourse as the caption for each photograph proves its futility. Posting it once, at Downend, South Gloucestershire, owuld make sense and get more readers.

Secondly, Downend is in South Gloucestershire, not Bristol. If you don't believe me, follow the link from Category:Christ Church, Downend to the Historic England website which will tell you.

Edit warring wastes your time and mine. Please stop. Motacilla (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Again you? The lenght as nothing to do with value. And the description on this images are fit. So please stop wasting my time, two years ago, six months ago and now, again.
  • And what about Downend being in South Gloucestershire, not Bristol, what i have to do with that???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? The original description did not mention Bristol, but your "description" added the false information of this church being in Bristol. If you don't believe me, follow the history from one of the files or the addiction of this church to categories of Bristol. That will tell you, who was the one that added this false description and worng categories and then threw the guilt to other innocent user. Tm (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Oporto (Portugal) (23932563322).jpg[edit]

Is this how you wanted File:Oporto (Portugal) (23932563322).jpg? I've running into trouble with this user who over-crops and saw in his edit that he did the same thing to this image of yours.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the info and the alert. This and other images images are part of a sett uploaded by me, that have borders and watermarks. So cropping borders and watermarks are fine, but stating that overcroppes is an understatement! I´ve reviewed this users crops of images uploaded by me (and reverted as necessary) and many of his images have crops of 20, 30 40 or even 50%. About crops and composition, this user should readCommons:Overwriting_existing_files#Substantial_crop_or_un-crop. Tm (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Take care with homonymes[edit]

You have sorted some images of Leeds Castle in Kent into the category Leeds. The latter, however, is about the city in West Yorkshire. That's a different place. So, please check whether something really belongs into the category you want to put it in. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This were moved from being uncategorized to being categorized (wrongly). But thanks for moving them to the proper place. Tm (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oporto pictures[edit]

Dear Tm, now you may remove the Oporto pictures from the Category:Images with borders.--MedioWikiInit (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Jenna Elfman in Alberta Ferretti 02.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Jenna Elfman in Alberta Ferretti 02.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the 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 | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 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)‎ | +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Rose McGowan in Roberto Cavalli 02.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Rose McGowan in Roberto Cavalli 02.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the 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 | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 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)‎ | +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Rose McGowan in Roberto Cavalli 01.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Rose McGowan in Roberto Cavalli 01.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the 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 | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 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)‎ | +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Focus on the foot (1324170539).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Focus on the foot (1324170539).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 | Български | 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) 11:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Um monte de fotos já cotegorizadas de volta a Category:Lisbon?![edit]

Isto foi o quê? -- Tuválkin 21:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Unidentified aircraft[edit]

Hi, thanks for uploading images, but please stop adding Unidentified aircraft as a category, when the aircraft are patently identified. It is irksome to patrol the category to find someone has filled it with aircraft images that are easily identified or worse identified in the title or text!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Lisboa II (6244344815).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lisboa II (6244344815).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 | Български | 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 21:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot: Moving from Category:Moscow to Category:Tverskoy[edit]

Could you please not move files this way? it just pushes the issue deeper. When these files stay in a large (and apparently incorrect category) city-level category, they are quite well seen and sooner or later someone will move them to a correct pigeonhole. Also, the district tags in panoramio filenames are often incorrect, don't take them for granted. Retired electrician (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/242118115[edit]

Mind explaining this edit? Your edit didn't include an edit summary. 80.221.152.17 00:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:A Fabulous Invitation (23447512123).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:A Fabulous Invitation (23447512123).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

File:The Cliff (24345053493).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:The Cliff (24345053493).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/243222812[edit]

In case you're new to this: Commons is a wiki, and since you're not its sole contributor, you are expected to show a collaborative attitude instead of undoing other contributors' work without providing an explanation. Given that I've not only taken the time to make the contribution you choose to undo, but also had to come here and write this message, could you be so very kind as to provide the aforementioned explanation?    FDMS  4    20:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


No, i´am not new to this as i have 10 years 9 months and 20 days of times and 1 171 071 editions in Commons. In any case see Commons:Categories#Category_names - especially in case you do not know what are the policies of Commons - where it says "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form.". In any case you were the one that made the improper move and so you are also not the sole contributor, and with your move you undo other users contributions. Tm (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:Bridges in Portugal by name, bridge categories being named in English is not something I came up with. Ponte Pedro e Inês is not a proper noun (only Pedro e Inês is), but one term (likely not all) Portuguese speakers use to refer to the bridge – even if it was a proper noun, the bridge's English Wikipedia article being named Pedro e Inês bridge for seven years certainly counts as "established use". I don't see the category ever having been renamed from an English title to the Portuguese one, hence I just corrected a mistake in accordance with the language policy I linked to in the edit summary.    FDMS  4    21:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
See again the policy. The bridge is refered as Ponte Pedro e Inês as a proper name by this name by portuguese speakers in Portugal (do you speak portuguese natively to know what a proper noun is in portuguese?). This is Commons, not English Wikipedia, so different projects and no the name of the article is not an "established use". To quote again do not rename proper nouns on an ad hoc name, per language policy and the more specified Commons:Categories#Category_names, linked from the first one. Tm (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Any arguments why you think it is a proper noun? German speakers use the term Apfel to refer to an apple, that doesn't make Apfel a proper noun either. Also, how can the world's most popular encyclopedia and the 5th-most visited website not count as an "established use"?    FDMS  4    21:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
What as to do german (germanic language) with portuguese (an latin language)? And apples to bridges? No, i dont have an argument as to why Ponte Pedro e Inês is a proper noun. I "only" have a knowledge of portuguese as my native language (i´am portuguese) and that is enough. Or do you have nat knowledge of portuguese as an native or any arguments why you think it is not a proper noun?. See related discussions about proper nouns and languages like Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Churches in Portugal and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts. and several other older. The fact is that this bridge is properly named, popularity is not the same as established use (or are you appealing to numbers or popularity). Also Commons is not the same as the english wikipedia, different projects and policies (and no, Commons is not subservient to wnglish wikipedia). The fact is that Commons does not make ad hoc translations, as you tried to make, per policies and discussions linked. Tm (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant editing![edit]

Warning: NSFW

Please do not revert irrelevant promotional file description. As you did here File:Courtney (model) 3.jpg, File:Courtney (model) 5.jpg,File:Courtney (model) 9.jpg and File:Courtney (model) 11.jpg. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 21:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant. See the description and how it dewcribes the photoshooting, the model and the photographer. It is not promotional material. It describes what the photo depicts, the photographer and the conditions of the shooting. Tm (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
There are too much long unnessery description. Commons is not anyone's personal blog, where s/he tells the story behind her/his click. Please do not revart father. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 21:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
There is not a rule that dictates how long should the description be, but even if its long but necessary. As i said above, this descriptions relates how the shooting was made, how is the model, how the shooting occurred and other relevant info. There is not a rule that dictates how long should the description be. Please do not revert description good further, incluiding deleting descriptions in other languages other than english. Tm (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Tm, please be aware that you may get blocked if you continue this edit war. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Based on what rules? See above why the descriptions are relevant. In what rules are you basing the deletion of this relevants descrptions. Or is it again one administrator defending another administrator, irrelevant of merits and rules? Tm (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
At the VP you edited the comment of Moheen Reeyad, removed the NSFW warning of Yann and removed my comment. Also, different from what you seem to assume, edit warring can be a valid reason for a block. I am not simply defending a colleague, I have looked myself and concluded that your behaviour is inappropriate. Jcb (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You continued you edit war, after having responded to my warning --> block 1 week - Jcb (talk)
I did not deleted anyone texts. Maybe it was the fact that i started writing before anyone started edited and saved after, and that deleted the removed the NSFW warning of Yann and your comment. Again in what policies do you base your decision to delete the descriptions? May i point to who was that started the edit warring, after i explained why the descrptions are relevant? Again in what rules are yiu based to say that my "behaviour is inappropriate". I merely undeleted the original description. In what right do you decide that a small and abstract and generic description is better then one that describes in detail the photoshooting, the conditions of the ~shooting, and who is the model? Tm (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It was clear that inclusion of this text was disputed by at least 3 users. Continuing to revert at this point is sufficient reason for a block and you are well aware of that. This text can only be re-included if that would be the outcome of the discussion. Any admin who sees the today edits of the 4 image description pages and the messages at this talk page will see that a block at this point was inevitable, independent from what they may think about the disputed description itself. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The fact is that the the images were edited by several more than 3 users and not one cared to delete the description (even the original uploader that was... surprise... [[User:Moheen Reeyad|Moheen Reeyad}}. Or are their opinions and editions irrelevant now? As you are clearly against this descriptionsJcb care to explain, based in policies and rules, instead of your subjective judgement, why the deletion of the relevant descriptions is according to policy? It seems that until know i did not cared to explain why the deletion of that text is according to rules.
As you seem to acuse me, on Village Pump, of persistant blocking for edit warring, it seems i will have to defend my honour, albeit the good smaritan that is
Instead of going all the way to 2010, as it is long ago (and i´ll admit that until 2014, maybe some blocks were partially or totally proper). This is also to Davey2010 who seem to be badly misinformed about the reasons for my last blocks. Will you withdraw what you wrote on Village Pump and change accordingly? Or will you continue accusing me of something that now you know is false? See below the two of you
Block in January 15 2014, made by you Jcb blocked me and less than one hour later you unblocked me. The reason for my block and speedy unblock? Your stubborness not to delete a file that was nominated by me to speedy deletion and you kept refusing the speedy deletion request. Anyway, after being blocked and unblocked by you, the file was deleted anyway, after more user time wasted.
Block in June 13 2015 and unblocked less than a day latter. The reason? An administrator using his block hammer to win an discussion|. Why the unblock by the same administrator? Because the case came to the Village Pump and was unblocked because of what several users called conflit of interest and or administrator abuse
Block in November 16 2016, the last one. Again some bureacrat decided to follow his own rules, instead of Commons policies. Again unblocked, less than four hours latter, after several users and administrators complained of this abuse in my talk page and Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
So will you, after my contextualization, claimed that you blocked me for 1 week justifying that i´ve "been blocked so many times already for edit warring, that a week seems more appropriate than e.g. a day."
After what i showed and linked above will you still stick to what you know now to be untrue? The last time that i was blocked for edit warring was in Juanuary 5 2013. Thats almost 4 and half years ago. Will you so unblock me and so participate in the discussion in the Village Pump, or will i continuen blocked of discussion this matter, even if i participated before and aswered to the initial user that reverted my editions?
Or will you still be saying that the block is according to policy (despite i the fact that i aswered in the VP and in this page to Moheen Reeyad, or do you not care to follow the rules and policies, not giving an solid and factual block rationale, even after what is being said n the Village Pump and what i said above? Tm (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "For the reasons stated above. Reasons for block and lenght are not true and stated in policies. See discussion above and Village_pump. Tm (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)"
Unblock reason: "see belowNyttend (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)"

This template should be archived normally.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | 中文(简体)‎ | +/−

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unblock, enough hours have passed for any point to be made. The blocking administrator was involved, as rather than protecting the file temporarily from edits, and thereby by-passing any drama, they entered into the edit-war, chose which side was "right", and then blocked Tm for reverting their "sysop" edit. No administrator should be acting to block other users where they have chosen to take action that makes them a direct party to an incident. Tm may be considered admonished, but Jcb has a lesson to learn from this case as to how to remain sufficiently independent and when to defer action to fellow administrators. I suggest Jcb let other admins take the call on whether Tm should be the subject of admin actions in the future. -- (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Fae, please don't attempt to create confusion. I was uninvolved, until I came in to stop the disruptive behaviour. I gave them the opportunity to stop the behaviour without being blocked, but they prefered to continue and to get blocked. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
      • There is no confusion. Instead of protecting the file and letting the community finish discussing changes, you made reverts based on your personal preferences and became a party. This was in advance of taking any action. From the point where you decided what version was "right", you were pre-empting any community discussion, after all, who is going to start debating with an admin who is threatening blocks? Your actions were involved and inappropriate. -- (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose block - As per WP:BRD Tm added the information, Tm was reverted and so the next step should've been for Tm to discuss it which they didn't, I get the whole mellow thing but there's been 7 blocks for edit warring admittingly 2 were overturned however that doesn't make it all better, Nothing against Tm but if I were the blocking admin it would've been for much much longer. (Also I've updated my comment at VP, Thanks), –Davey2010Talk 15:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unblock: Let him work. -- Tuválkin 14:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Between the statements you gave above the unblock template, and the comments made by other users, I think an unblock wise. (I came here because the blocking admin left a request at COM:AN for review by an uninvolved admin.) As it's been more than four years since your most recent edit-warring block, aside from those that were overturned, I don't think this block length is reasonable; if you deserved a block (no opinion there), the block length you've experienced is a good deal more reasonable for what you did, and if you didn't deserve it, of course unblocking you quickly is the only appropriate course of action. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

File:FUERZAS COMBINADAS INCAUTARON ARMAMENTO Y MATERIAL SUBVERSIVO EN EL VRAEM (21149648851).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FUERZAS COMBINADAS INCAUTARON ARMAMENTO Y MATERIAL SUBVERSIVO EN EL VRAEM (21149648851).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 | Български | 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) 15:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

File:FUERZAS COMBINADAS INCAUTARON ARMAMENTO Y MATERIAL SUBVERSIVO EN EL VRAEM (20953767660).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FUERZAS COMBINADAS INCAUTARON ARMAMENTO Y MATERIAL SUBVERSIVO EN EL VRAEM (20953767660).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 | Български | 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) 15:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Lisbon 44 (14659303116).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lisbon 44 (14659303116).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 | Български | 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 02:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Senado Federal do Brasil and Chamber of Deputies of Brazil[edit]

Hi Tm,

Regarding Category:Senado Federal do Brasil and Category:Chamber of Deputies of Brazil: I see your point, but please don't confuse the organizations with the respective buildings. If there are more images or subcategories related to the actual building, please categorize them individually. Let's keep it consistent.

Cheers --MB-one (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No, as in case you do not know the building of the Congress is divided in two parts. The building of the chamber of deputies and the building of the senate, and 99,5% of the photos were taken or are about the buildings and evets inside said building and all categories are related to physical spaced in the congress buildings. Tm (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken there. Many images show members of the two chambers, while only few are actually showing the plenary chambers itself. To make things worse, we actually have Category:Files from Senado Federal Flickr stream with almost 100k images, which are taken all over Brazil. They are currently all categorized as a “Building in Brasília”. It's important to have a clear separation between the two “houses” (not buildings, but corporations) of the Congress and the Congress building, because they are not at all identical.
Cheers --MB-one (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I´m the one that uploaded almost all images related with the senate and i know very weel what are the categories and what kind of imagery there is, and when i say that 99,5% of this images are taken inside said buildings, i´m afraid you are mistaken there. Also as you do not know portuguese, but if you knew you would read that the senate and the chamber of deputies, you would understand that the buildings is divided in two sub-buildings (the senate and the chamber), so this categories should and are for several years categorized under the proper building. Tm (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't matter if it is 0.05 % or 99.5% of the images. It also doesn't matter what you believe, I don't understand. Some of the images are related to the Congress building and should be catgorized as such, while others are simply not in any way related to the building. To remedy the situation, I propose to create a new category Category:National Congress of Brazil and potentially additional categories for specific parts of the building, to have a clear separation. Would you agree to that?
--MB-one (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
No, as i said above it "doesn't matter what you believe" as i said above that the images and categories are already properly categorized and more the specific parts of the building and its subpartsare already have proper separation in proper categories.

Category Russia, Moscow etc. on Panoramio Bot uploads[edit]

I think there was some consensus that the bot doesn't add such categories to its uploads. You should not bypass it by adding these categories via Cat-a-lot etc.. Thanks --A.Savin 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


You have been blocked for a duration of 14 days[edit]

{{Autotranslate|1=14 days|2=Vandalism: Cat-a-lot misuse despite of warnings|base=Blocked}}

Since you do not bother to reply and continue same way, (and given the previous block log) 2 weeks block --A.Savin 06:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@A.Savin: could you please provide links to the vandalism, or the preceding discussion about the use of cat-a-lot, being referenced in this block? Thanks -- (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
One thread above --A.Savin 09:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The only apparent complainant then, is you; surely this makes you a directly involved party, in fact the only involved party, and you should not be taking action here?
Apart from "I think there was", I do not see any links to prior discussion, or a consensus, that Tm should refrain from adding certain categories to the Panoramio bot uploads. Neither do I see any specific prior warning before this two week block. This is not the normal process for blocks, nor do Tm's actions appear to be "vandalism" by any existing definition we use on Commons.
Please add some links to the evidence for this block, and the policy you are enforcing by applying this block. Thanks -- (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I requested them not to bypass the Panoramio bot consensus = I'm involved party? OK, next time the block will be without warning. --A.Savin 09:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
As said, there was no warning given before this block, just an earlier statement with no references to an existing consensus about categorization, nor any link to the offending edits made by Tm. Yes, if you are the only complainant and there is no obvious consensus (or policy) supporting your action, I see no other conclusion apart from that you are an directly involved party, in fact the only other party here. Your threat to block Tm in the future without any warnings is unhelpful and pointlessly inflammatory. Please avoid creating drama around a block that you are responsible and accountable for.
Administrators are required to work constructively with others, I have already asked for the evidence for this block which makes an allegation of vandalism against Tm. Unfortunately the evidence for this block has yet to be provided. Without evidence it is unclear if the block is valid, how Tm is expected to change their behaviour, how Tm should appeal this block, or how to amend their actions in categorizing these uploads in the future.
With regard to what I presume is the issue, it's guesswork as you have supplied no links, using country categories at a high level is not vandalism. By blocking Tm's account you appear to be stopping Tm's work in improving precisely this categorization issue, for example Tm's last edits, made six hours before your block, were like this, changing Category:Russia to Category:Moscow Oblast. Tm's intention appears to have been to get the images roughly categorized then start refining the categories. This is perfectly normal behaviour for Commons contributors, not vandalism. By blocking Tm's account you are stopping the improvements you were asking for.
I'll ask for the block evidence once again, as perhaps it is my fault that my question was not clear enough, and if there is no meaningful evidence available, I'll consider if there are alternative ways to approach this that do not require any more time from yourself.
Question 1: Please provide a link to the consensus with regard to categories for the Panoramio bot uploads that you have referenced and this block relies on.
Question 2: Please explain which of Tm's actions are vandalism as alleged, and provide a link to the policy or official guidelines that Tm has broken that require a block of their account.
Thanks -- (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As three hours has now passed, I'm presuming you are not especially interested, or are busy with more urgent matters. I have asked for an independent review at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Review requested of two week block of User:Tm for vandalism. Thanks for your replies to my questions about this block. -- (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Note: @Tm - Just to avoid any confusion, you've been unblocked and there are no conditions or sanctions. You are free to continue editing as you were before the block. Take care. Face-smile.svg Daphne Lantier 22:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I have suppressed the block notice, it is withdrawn, despite the ridiculously bad faith comments of the blocking administrator on AN/U and the lack of any apology for their incompetence. I am sorry that the administrator making this bad block has left a permanent blemish on your block log, and appears to have learned nothing from the experience, choosing instead to make allegations of "corruption" against everyone else. Please keep a mental marker for this event, should other bad administrative judgements from the same person happen to arise in the future I suggest we dig it out for a second examination and push for a speedy desysop. Thanks -- (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  • FWIW I'd support a desysop, Not the first time this admin got his head stuck up his own arse and certainly won't be the last - He'll probably block me now not that I really care. –Davey2010Talk 03:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Dresden Panoramio / Südvorstadt Panoramio / etc.[edit]

This category contains files automatically uploaded by Panoramio upload bot to be checked, categorized and renamed. Please be so kind: Do not remove this files. Thanks a lot. --Frze > talk 04:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  • You were the one that first moved files already properly categorized, to categories outside of proper categories hierarchy. So dont start by removing this files from its proper categories. Thanks

Gemuesereis[edit]

Hi, I put those files into Category:Unidentified rice-based food because they weren't pilaf. Pilaf doesn't contain brown beans. It seems to be a fantasy dish, something between a pilaf and South American Beans-and-rice. I'll revert them back. Please discuss if you really think that they're pilaf. - Takeaway (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Enrique Simonet[edit]

I really don’t understand why you remove Category:Enrique Simonet from paintings by Enrique Simonet

???

--90.94.25.235 16:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Williamsport, KS, USA - panoramio (140).jpg[edit]

Not an aircraft!!!--Petebutt (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Four days of your stubborness in deleting a category instead of correcting. Quoting LX in the image history page "If you know what it is, how about adding some proper categories and information instead of edit warring?". Tm (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are you vandalizing categories?[edit]

Your actions render categories like Category:Russia completely unusable. Also, it has been suggested several times to gather Panoramio photos in dedicated categories, given their varying degrees of quality. I've spent quite some time today on such projects, and I strongly disapprove that you empty and delete them without any discussion. -- Gauss (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please care to read User_talk:Tm#Foi_bloqueado_e_n.C3.A3o_pode_editar_en_Commons_durante_14_days and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_64#Review_requested_of_two_week_block_of_User:Tm_for_vandalism, before you accuse me of vandalism, and also care to read how image uploaded from Panoramio are categorized. Your "categorizing" this images into oblivion by trying to make some compartmentalized categories that no one will care to categorize in several years is what i would call "vandalism" (not really vandalism, but just an attempt to hide said images). As you called me a vandal without reason or cause, i will, as i did with the administrator acting as an berserker tried last time, i will not honor your staments with an answer. Tm (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 2 Hi Tm, I have read the pages. You move pictures in the upper upper upper categories (I wrote before). Gauss creates new categories. An example: I found this picture in the Category:Images from the German Federal Archive years ago. Meanwhile, it is well-sorted. My request: Do not empty the categories "Panoramio photos of ..." Many thx Hystrix (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hystrix dont you see that by "categorizing" this image into categories "Panoramio photos of ..." this is an attempt to sweep this images under the rug? As i explained in your talkpage i´am (and several other users) "making several basic categorizations, starting with categorizing images into the country categories and with time i (or several other users) categorized or will categorize then into more suitable categories, but alas this takes time" and by shoving this images down a memory hole , just to "clean" some categories no one will properly categorize them in years if ever? So the existence "Panoramio photos of ..." categories are counterintuitive and "vandalism" (see my definition above of this vandalism in quotation marks) and are counter to proper categorization. Or will we start creating main categories like "Gauss photos of ..." as a subcategory of cities, countries, etc? This image should be in the main categories and not in some under the rug categories, just to "show" how pretty neat said catgories are, showing the main room, but shoving the undesirables to a darken memory hole. Thanks. Tm (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Gauss: Indeed, it's useless to request this "Party of crooks and thieves" about anything. But I'm sure users like Tm/Tuvalkin will one day end up in global ban, because there surely will be tghe last straw sooner or later. Just patience... --A.Savin 01:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • And here's to hoping you'll be desysopped sooner rather than later! ..... Just patience..... –Davey2010Talk 01:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A.Savin, two things:
  • I happen to have the same exact feeling about you.
  • Why is my name being mentioned on the context of categorization of high quantity uploads into crowded categories? When did I ever did something remotely like that? Any analysis of my work in Commons will show that, if anything, I do exactly the opposite. Care to explain?
-- Tuválkin 11:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@A.Savin: After you called me a vandal and corrupt i think i was entitled to call you a berserker in the historic sense, as someone who "fought in a trance-like fury". This last comment of yours calling me crook and thieve, after you blocking me for 15 days and unblocking after User_talk:Tm#Foi_bloqueado_e_n.C3.A3o_pode_editar_en_Commons_durante_14_days and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_64#Review_requested_of_two_week_block_of_User:Tm_for_vandalism showed you were wrong in the moral and policy side is appalling. As you after a month, in which time i was expecting a apologie or at the least you corrected your behaviour as an administrator, it seems you did not at the least thought about what happened. But after a month, time more than enough to at least recognize at you did not acted in the better away, it seems that your actions as an administrator are better dealed with a comemnt in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, as i did.
And not happy with that you also called Tuvalkin a crook and thieve, someone not related with this discussion and someone with whom i had several arguments and strifes. This is know how an administrator acts? If you had or still have some dignity you should ask your resignation, temporary or permanent. Tm (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The part related to A.Savin, i ask to be discussed in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#A.Savin. Thank you. Tm (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Gauss (and everybody), would you acknowledge that Tm works as much in uploading stuff that end up briefly in crowded categories, as he works in dissminate them, please? How is this other than harrassing him? -- Tuválkin 11:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • This disruptive "dissemination" must stop. I asked Tm to stop back in April, now he does it again and again, pushing mislabeled uncategorized files from their present conspicuous locations to obscure place. I mean mass moves from, say, Category:Moscow to Category:Tagansky. It just drives the problem deeper and deeper. If two-week block didn't help, make it two years. Retired electrician (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
      I fail to understand your complaint, or threat to ban Tm from Commons. You appear to be complaining that Tm is attempting to categorize files more specifically, while at the same time others are complaining that they are categorizing too generically. Looks like a deliberate Catch-22. I don't see how anyone who makes the effort to run significant batch uploads can possibly meet all these arbitrary "requirements".
      Ah, I see you have under 5,000 edits to Commons, so it could be you have not been involved with many mass upload projects or had to handle any significant mass categorization challenges yourself. Perhaps you should back off and let those that have had to solve similar problems help drive any recommendations? -- (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
      • @Retired electrician: Please care to read User_talk:Tm#Foi_bloqueado_e_n.C3.A3o_pode_editar_en_Commons_durante_14_days and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_64#Review_requested_of_two_week_block_of_User:Tm_for_vandalism, before commenting that "If two-week block didn't help, make it two years". As you will see the 2 week block was out of process and policies block, quickly overturned as my categorization is in according to policy. ALso, as per words this is a classic Catch-22. If i move them to a specific category you complain, if i move them to a more generic others complain! This is what in my country is called being "arrested for having dog and arrested for not having". I will continue to categorize Panoramio files, according to what Commons policies, costumes and pratices, as the complaints have no merit and are contradictory between them. So, if i´ve categorized around 20 000 images of Russia, and you say that i "pushing mislabeled uncategorized files from their present conspicuous locations to obscure place", state how many images (or a percentage) that are so mislabed, using raw data and numbers to backup your claims of a supposed sistematic problem.
      • @: Thanks again, as you did last month with my unwarranted block, for putting stating the right facts. Tm (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
As far I've understood it the point is that Tm does category hopping (like moving 1000 files from Russia → Moscow → Tagansky District). This doesn't solve the problem, just relocates it into another category.
What Retired electrician or Gauss are doing is to move Panoramio directly into the most specific category where they can stay forever.--Kosher Nostra Scam (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The above comment is from an apparent sock account for a globally banned user based on name and minimal edits made. If they persist and do not clarify any names of alternative accounts, I suggest a SPI request is created. Thanks -- (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
If I may remind/correct you, this is not enwiki, Commons has RfCu, not SPI. ;) Poyekhali 00:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Careless categorization[edit]

Please don't add all images from EU2017EE Flickr stream to "Politicians of Europe" category when many of these images clearly aren't of politicians. Some are without any persons, some are of clerks, artists performing, random people at a public event etc. For some images it's hard to tell, who is depicted, and so you are making a mess which is hard to fix. I suggest leaving these images without additional categories at first. 62.65.58.165 07:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh, at least please let other people fix it. For all images that I've edited, I've checked whether some well-known person (politician or not) is the main topic and adjusted categories accordingly. There's no need to add all images back in "Politicians of Europe". 62.65.58.165 16:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously. Now I note that over a year or so you have filled Category:Politicians of Europe with over 10 thousand images that has the same problem as with EU2017EE images. Lots of them are not of politicians. You have made this category useless. Even for images that in this way end up in correct category tree, it's little use, since further review and more specific categorization is needed for every image anyways. For images that end up in wrong category tree, users in good faith get wrong impression that images are of politicians. When depicted persons aren't named, then fixing this is very hard. So clearly you are making more harm than good with that sort of categorization.
I've tried to fix some of it, but you are nullifying my work. For many images I've already found out that depicted persons are not politicians, like here, nonetheless you put it back in wrong category. For many images I've already identified who the main subject is and added specific category, like here, nonetheless you go for over-categorziation. I haven't added person specific categories for group photos, since I don't find it useful as they are poor illustrations of specific persons. If you want to review, double-check and add additional categories, then you can still do it without abusing "Politicians of Europe" category.
You seem to have no intention to fix it, since many images lie in this category for a long time. Should you actually want to go through images one by one and categorize them properly, then you don't need to use "Politicians of Europe" as you personal sandbox. To review your own uploads you can simply go through list of your own contributions/uploads, or query whatever list of files you need, and store it in your personal space if necessary.
PS. Thanks for handling move request here. 62.65.58.165 08:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As for the latest images that you re-added into "Unidentified politicians of Europe", I checked that no person specific category is really needed. E.g. most definitely for an image where people at the foreground are sitting backward and other people are barely visible. And you don't expect that categories for some 50 individuals will be added for this group photo, do you? So, again, please do check what you are doing to avoid messing up things that I've already cleaned up.

Using "Politicians of Europe to check" is sort of an improvment, but I still don't get it why you stick with "politicians". If you don't know the actual occupation then why not say just "people"? Adding large part of "to check" images back into topic category of "(Unidentified) politicians of Europe" however isn't an improvement. 62.65.58.165 19:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Early morning in Lisbon (35106988175).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Early morning in Lisbon (35106988175).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lisboa 20170508 204118 (34697198631).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lisboa 20170508 204118 (34697198631).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lisboa em Julho de 2014 IMG 5095 (18117249014).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lisboa em Julho de 2014 IMG 5095 (18117249014).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lisboa em Julho de 2014 IMG 5096 (18713576576).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lisboa em Julho de 2014 IMG 5096 (18713576576).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Posing (34943458156).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Posing (34943458156).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

62.65.58.165 07:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

File:70th anniversary of the United Nations (24097909649).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:70th anniversary of the United Nations (24097909649).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Zaccarias (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lisboa - Lisbon (24539336716).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lisboa - Lisbon (24539336716).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Michèle Coninsx, Eurojust president.png[edit]

Hi, can you please tell me why you moved the file File:Michèle Coninsx, Eurojust president.png from Category:Politicians of Europe to Category:Unidentified politicians of Europe ? Without providing a reason, how can anyone determine your motive for doing so ? Was the person in the photo wrongfully identified as Mrs. Michèle Coninsx ? If so, can you provide any evidence of this ? Regards, --oSeveno (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Moved by mistake, in the context of a massive move of files. Tm (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I´ve created Category:Michèle Coninsx. Tm (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Informal meeting of health ministers (iEPSCO). Arrivals 1106 20170720 (35872064682).jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | 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 | 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 was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Informal meeting of health ministers (iEPSCO). Arrivals 1106 20170720 (35872064682).jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Informal meeting of health ministers (iEPSCO). Arrivals 1106 20170720 (35872064682).jpg]]).

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) 21:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Informal meeting of health ministers (iEPSCO). Arrivals A72A0260 (35655513740).jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | 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 | 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 was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Informal meeting of health ministers (iEPSCO). Arrivals A72A0260 (35655513740).jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Informal meeting of health ministers (iEPSCO). Arrivals A72A0260 (35655513740).jpg]]).

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) 05:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Informal meeting of health ministers (iEPSCO). Arrivals 1100 20170720 (36001462456).jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | 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 | 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 was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Informal meeting of health ministers (iEPSCO). Arrivals 1100 20170720 (36001462456).jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Informal meeting of health ministers (iEPSCO). Arrivals 1100 20170720 (36001462456).jpg]]).

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!

And also:

Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Elisfkc, Tm: Should anyone wish to debate the roll-backs I have made, then they can either raise a question on my talk page or ask for advice on AN. Adding the no source template to files which been license reviewed and have a correctly given original source is not appropriate. Thanks -- (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@: There didn't seem to be a history of them being reviewed, which was why they were in Category:Flickr images not found. Elisfkc (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This ignores the file history, which is completely clear. For example diff. If the categories are being incorrectly applied, that's an issue to raise for whomever is responsible for populating them. -- (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc, : Unfortunately the flickr sources of the images i uploaded were deleted between the upload and the review made by the FlickreviewR 2 bot. That`s why this images were categorized into Category:Flickr images not found. The explanation of Elisfkc is correct, in my point of view, as this images are currently without a source, as per above, and so if no one find a source to this images - i`ve searched but could not find one - they should be deleted, as the flickreview says that "This image was originally posted to Flickr. It has been reviewed on [review time] by the automated bot FlickreviewR. The image was however no longer available on Flickr, and its copyright status thus undeterminable.", as we cannot prove that this images were freely licensed. Tm (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, my apologies. This is a rare set of circumstances. -- (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2017 (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 | Български | 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, A.Savin 22:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Cindy Rodriguez[edit]

I noticed you removed the tag I had placed on this file. Note that I marked this image as a likely copyright violation, and provided an argument in evidence of this. Copyright violations are usually treated as speedy deletion cases, no? Also, by removing the notification about the file automatically left here on your talk page, you made it more difficult for me to track the issue. Wish you hadn't done that. KDS4444 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Cindy Rodriguez.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Cindy Rodriguez.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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

KDS4444 ([[User talk:KDS4444

  • And now what should have been a simple copyright violation speedy deletion request is running its course as a regular deletion nomination on which other editors are now commenting and are also agreeing should be deleted as a copyright violation. Maybe you would like to weigh in on this? KDS4444 (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

[break][edit]

Wäre Tm sehr verbunden weil nur zu fair, wenn trotz aller IT-Möglichkeiten primär die Version des Urhebers beachtet wird. Für wenn seine vorsätzliche Weiterleitung des Bildes an Wikipornia ein Sorry & return erfolgen würde. Das ist primär Vandalismus und unfair. Sende beste Grüße. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Long BRD (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

STOP![edit]

Dieses Bild ist nicht Dein rechtliches Eingentum. Unterlasse Änderungen und Deine unseriösen Weiterleitungen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Long BRD (talk • contribs) 13:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified_politicians_of_Europe[edit]

62.65.58.165 13:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

Das ist echt die Höhe und rein Datenrechtlich mehr als nur ein Hammer. Hier ist der quasi rücksichtlos Begehende, auch gleichzeitig Schiedsrichter? Lass es sein oder Du gefährdest Deinen Status, den Wiki liebt solches Verhalten nicht! Wie war das noch: Vandalismus wird nicht geschätzt! Du machst es durch dieses Verhalten leider zu einer Farce. Ist Dein Alltag wirklich so arm, dass Du das nötig hast? Sei so nett und gib uns beiden eine neue Chance und lösche die Bilder. Merci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Long BRD (talk • contribs) 14:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

3 Austrian soldiers[edit]

...how can this be related to the Swiss military [1]? --Fraknö (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not answering. Will you remove the wrong categories of the Edelweiss Raid pictures yourself or do you want this do be done by others for you? --Fraknö (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Belèm Lisboa (35950775000).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Belèm Lisboa (35950775000).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Movses (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Insects Unlocked[edit]

I'm happy to do regular batches of uploads from Insects Unlocked's Flickr account, but if you wish to contribute please use {{Creator:Insects Unlocked}}, {{Insects Unlocked}} and {{[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q33236104 Insects Unlocked]}}, as seen for example, on File:Thread-waisted wasp (Sphecidae, Ammophila cleopatra (Menke)) (36255464596).jpg. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

STOP II[edit]

that now! I'm categorize at the moment the shitty images of panoramio and you're only interrupting it. Stop that now! hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 13:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

HELLO?! hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 14:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The files are being categorized by me to proper categories. I ask that YOU do stop now, as is tiring to have someone reverting proper categorization. Tm (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. Sure. You know the photographed objects of the city where I'm living. Sure. hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 14:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
~:What have you hide? Other users categorize images from where i live. The images are properly categorized. Move, as i do in my home town, them further down the categories, but what you are doing is vandalism. Tm (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
What you are doing is bullshit. I started categorize every picutere and wanted to make new cat's. hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 14:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then start categorizing them from there, instead of reverting other people work. Tm (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Which work did you have done? Typical douchebag. hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 14:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Which work did you have done? 1 701 914 editions to be more precise. Your answer, is what i call a douchebag answer when you have no other arguments. Someone makes valid edits and you still revert them? Tm (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
As i´am such douchebag, here i hope your happy with my act, the premium of douchebagging. I´am not going to waste my time with someone that keeps reverting valid editions, instead of improving them. Tm (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There had been a community consensus not to sort panoramio photos into main categories. Stop reverting thos edits for Sabah. This can be considered to be vandalism. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Tm: The only thing you've done was, to move files from one upper category to an other upper category. You've done that very barbaric: images with some green areas in it were moved by you into Category:Nature of Kempten (Allgäu). Example here. Same issue with images of official named areas/districts of Kempten, we've here 155 of them. You have moved them into Category:Nature of Kempten (Allgäu). Your virtual dick-measuring contest isn't a a sign of maturity. A closer look into your edits testify only, that you aren't a worker of quality. As you begun the wheel war I just started assorting Panoramio images into subcategories. Instead of contacting me, you also ignored my message on your discussion page. You were no help. You just stole time. Now are 350 images from Panoramio categorized into several subcategories. You weren't able to do that. Even if you told you could cuz you don't know the structure of the categories. Embarrassing for you. --hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hilarmont, you are being abusive, not just using abusive language, but making personal attacks. In particular "Which work did you have done? Typical douchebag." was a direct personal attack against Tm. What is under discussion is how best to categorize files and how to manage category diffusion. This can be discussed without inflammatory language quickly degenerating it into a shouting match.

Were I your target of abuse, I would walk away and not bother with further categorization of these uploads, just leaving you to "own" them, as that is what you appear to be demanding.

Tm, my advice to you is avoid the temptation to repeat abusive language like bullshit, shitty or douchebag. Although it is clearly being introduced by others, you are falling into the trap of engaging in the same manner. It would be better to say nothing in reply, and this is probably the best action you can take at this point. Had you avoided repeating 'douchebag' yourself, then there could have been a case for action against Hilarmont under COM:BP, however later replies make this look like bad tempered argument on all sides.

Thanks -- (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi Tm[edit]

Lots of Fraser Valley stuff in these this uncat cat. You're likely faster than me, so I'll move on. (You might as well reply here as I'm using an IP.;-)) Cheers.2607:FEA8:239F:F18F:1C07:E3AD:AA44:3325 19:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@2607:FEA8:239F:F18F:1C07:E3AD:AA44:3325: Thanks or the heads up. Already done. Starting to defuse to proper categories. Tm (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

good jop

hololo 14:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymanabdelmjid (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2017 в Україні / Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in Ukraine[edit]

WLM-logo-uk.svg

Вітаємо!

Запрошуємо взяти участь у міжнародному фотоконкурсі «Вікі любить пам'ятки»! До 30 вересня включно Ви можете подавати власні фото пам'яток історико-культурної спадщини України — і змагатися за призи. Звертаємо увагу, що завантажені матеріали будуть враховуватися у тій версії файлу, що був на час завершення конкурсу, тож якщо у Вас гарне фото, вантажте його одразу у високій роздільності. З регламентом конкурсу можна ознайомитися тут.

Якщо у Вас дуже багато фото, скористайтеся масовими завантажувачами або зверніться до нас.

Окрім традиційних номінацій за найкращі фото і найбільшу кількість сфотографованих об'єктів, у конкурсі також є спецномінація для Ваших відеоматеріалів про пам'ятки. Якщо у Вас розмір відеофайлу завеликий для конкурсного завантажувача, спробуйте скористатися стандартним завантажувачем, але не забудьте поставити ідентифікатор пам'ятки. Якщо виникатимуть будь-які труднощі — пишіть нам на wlm@wikimediaukraine.org.ua

Приєднуйтеся! Зі списками пам'яток можна ознайомитися тут. Більше інформації про конкурс дивіться у блозі конкурсу. – З повагою, Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки». 21:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Files from Panoramio, which probably do not correspond to the project scope[edit]

Hi Tm,

please do not just remove the problem category for different files without discussion. Best regards, Hystrix (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hi, may be you know, how to upload more images at once. I don't use any tool for that. I discovered profile images on Flickr with correct licence from 2017 Aegon International. If you will have time for uploading, please do that. ;) Now i uploaded only Strýcová image. Thank you. Cheers.--Kacir (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Well done! Thx, next days I will add players categories. --Kacir (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Kacir: Your welcome. Also i took the opportunity to upload 199 images of the 2017 US Open. Uncategorized images of players are in Category:Tennis players. Tm (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I take a look files.--Kacir (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference project[edit]

Hello Tm,

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around, but since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--MB-one (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

repeated marking duplicates like this image. A cropped image from another image is not considered as a duplicate. See Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates when tagging with {{duplicate}} is appropriate. Files that are possibly redundant require a regular deletion request (DR).--Wdwd (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"NO COMENTS"[edit]

I'm going to try to find a filter that will hide all the pages and categories about Guimarães. every time I edit in these areas, I'm reverted ??? "NO COMENTS" --JotaCartas (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

File:First Photo from Sony A7R (11223379734).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:First Photo from Sony A7R (11223379734).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Jörg Haffke (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

Hi Tm. Recently you inserted many images with Cat-a-lot to the category Czechia and moved some of them to the category Prague. However, many of the images were properly categorized already, only the "needing categories" tag was not removed. Maybe, to remove the "needing categories" tag would be a better solution than to overcategorize the images. --ŠJů (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please wait with such mass actions until the task Cleanup Panoramio files needing categories is solved. (@Kanashimi, Krd:). --ŠJů (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Comissão_de_Assuntos_Sociais_(Senado_Federal_do_Brasil)[edit]

E4024 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Aryna_Sabalenka[edit]

Jarash (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Ilha de Santa Maria DSCF1718 (2093248219).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ilha de Santa Maria DSCF1718 (2093248219).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Te750iv (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Madeira - Porto Moniz (2093211403).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Madeira - Porto Moniz (2093211403).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Te750iv (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Up load a new file[edit]

Knock it off, I up loaded this file and made the changes DO NOT REVERT again thank you - FOX 52 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2012 AVN Expo Las Vegas (8455344746).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:2012 AVN Expo Las Vegas (8455344746).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

E4024 (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Help![edit]

Hello

Thank you for your incredible contributions!

We need picture for Cherie DeVille Wikipedia article.

Please help us, Thanks.

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 | Български | 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, --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Must I really track all your "categorising" to find out if you missed anything?[edit]

If you move uncategorized media away from their "uncategorized category", how should I add any missing categories if you have made them disappear into a category. So that is why I ask you to stop categorizing media in your very crude manner, only going for the easiest possible mass moves. These panoramio uploads contain way more information than you seem to realise, and the system of subcategories of Category:Bangkok seems to be a bit more intricate than you seem to realise. So for the third time I ask you to please stop. I am sure that there is much more uncategorized stuff awaiting you elsewhere. - Takeaway (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


COM:AN/U[edit]

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−


float  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User Tm again. not cooperating. Thank you.

- Takeaway (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Por quê?[edit]

Special:Diff/260769202? -- Tuválkin 17:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @Tuvalkin: Examinando as minhas edições desse dia e hora, esta e outras imagens estavam em várias categorias como Portugal, Station, Lisbon, Azulejos in Lisbon, etc e eu movias para de categorias redundantes. Acontece que todas estavam - pelo que verifiquei - em "Interior of Rossio train station" e "Rossio train station", excepto essa, mas por alguma razão essa desapareceu de qualquer uma delas. Mas agradeço ter adicionado à categoria correcta. Tm (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons newsletter, October 25, 2017[edit]

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests
Presentations / Press / Events
Audience at Structured Commons design discussion, Wikimania 2017
Team updates
The Structured Commons team at Wikimania 2017

Two new people have been hired for the Structured Data on Commons team. We are now complete! :-)

  • Ramsey Isler is the new Product Manager of the Multimedia team.
  • Pamela Drouin was hired as User Interface Designer. She works at the Multimedia team as well, and her work will focus on the Structured Commons project.
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
Research

Design research is ongoing.

  • Jonathan Morgan and Niharika Ved have held interviews with various GLAM staff about their batch upload workflows and will finish and report on these in this quarter. (phabricator task T159495)
  • At this moment, there is also an online survey for GLAM staff, Wikimedians in Residence, and GLAM volunteers who upload media collections to Wikimedia Commons. The results will be used to understand how we can improve this experience. (phabricator task T175188)
  • Upcoming: interviews with Wikimedia volunteers who curate media on Commons (including tool developers), talking about activities and workflows. (phabricator task T175185)
Development

In Autumn 2017, the Structured Commons development team works on the following major tasks (see also the quarterly goals for the team):

  • Getting Multi-Content Revisions sufficiently ready, so that the Multimedia and Search Platform teams can start using it to test and prototype things.
  • Determine metrics and metrics baseline for Commons (phabricator task T174519).
  • The multimedia team at WMF is gaining expertise in Wikibase, and unblocking further development for Structured Commons, by completing the MediaInfo extension for Wikibase.
Stay up to date!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 14:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Hassan the bookseller (7550602404).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Hassan the bookseller (7550602404).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

E4024 (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and possible censorship[edit]

Hi, I was interested to read the blocks of past sockpuppets of a certain current user. I do not normally bother chasing this sort of thing, but I may do some analysis in a few weeks when I have more time. It may or may not result in something. I did do some elementary investigation a few weeks ago, but did not see enough of a pattern to invest more of my volunteer time, nor even enough to start logging it off-wiki.

Based on past experience, it would be very difficult to get a sanction based on a bias that leads to inappropriate deletion requests, so to be worth raising on a noticeboard, there would have to be good evidence of disruption. However if you suspect any active sockpuppeting in a misleading way, especially if similar patterns from past problematic account use elsewhere are appearing on Commons, I would appreciate an email so I can add that to the analysis.

Thanks -- (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @: I will answer you on this page in a couple of hours. Tm (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

File:White Cat Black Cat (4005995383).jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:White Cat Black Cat (4005995383).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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the 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 | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 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)‎ | +/−

Rudolphous (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Freight trains in Spain[edit]

Hi Tm,

you've uploaded these photos of freight trains in Spain. May you please add the location?

Thanks in advance.--Ditch Witch (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Starting a food fight again?[edit]

Are you sure? - Takeaway (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Who started a "war" by reverting who with the comment "the usual"? It was not me. Tm (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Because it was your usual nonsensical recategorisation that I had reverted. Sue me. - Takeaway (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Nonsensical is your "categorizations" by moving images to a bucket categories "uncategorized images of", like you did with the Thailand categories. But what would be expected of you, someone that moves tens of thousands images to places where no one will categorize them for years, as you keep reverting other peoples editions when they are properly categorized. Tm (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That your "style" of recategorising media is often superfluous and is the type that makes media "disappear" has been explained to you several times already by different users here on Wikimedia. If you don't want to listen to their advise, sure. Just don't try to deflect the issue by pointing a finger at others. - Takeaway (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you might want to look up the difference between "uncategorised" and "unidentified". You seem to have a problem distinguishing between these two. - Takeaway (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Listed vs classified houses[edit]

Qual é a ideia de reverter a mudança de nome da categoria que eu mesmo criei, do termo "listed" de uso geral, para essa designação fora do padrão "classified" (que, por sinal, fui eu mesmo quem introduziu aqui)? Parece que você continua a ser o mesmo abusador do costume. Ou fornece alguma explicação razoável, ou eu mesmo o bloqueio, ou vai parar na Board dos Administradores, que você já conhece tão bem. Explique-se.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

E ainda por cima, parece que depois de tanto tempo aqui, não sabe ainda fazer uma movimentação de categoria, pois moveu manualmente para a designação fora do padrão, via copy paste. Se eu vejo que voltou a fazer o mesmo, leva bloqueio de três dias, que paciência tem limite, ainda mais para com alguém com o historial de disrupção que você tem por aqui.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The same goes to Listed churches in Portugal. Never revert category moves manually again, especially for no reason at all - and even going against the general practice - as you've done there. Next time I see you doing that again, you'll be blocked. You've been warned. Everybody has much more to do here, than having to constantly deal with your disruption. It's more than enough time already for you to get some manners, and learn how to live in community.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Se usou primeiramente o termo classified e outros, incluindo eu, seguimos essa categorização, o porquê de movimentar, após 4 anos de estabilidade para o termo listed, quando ambos estão igualmente correctos?

Ou seja, é você que tem de explicar o porquê de movimentar estas duas categorias para outro termo, quando o termo já era usado à vários anos, e porque acha que "Listed" é superior a "Classified", pois foi você que moveu Category:Classified churches in Portugal e Category:Classified houses in Portugal com o simples comentário "Following the general rule" sem mais nada e foi revertido, visto não ter justificado a mudança. Portanto " Explique-se"!

Conforme se lê em Commons:Rename a category "Controversial fixes: where a category name has been in use for a long time or a lot of items, or where the naming policy is unspecific. Any category that has a corresponding Wikipedia article which has had a naming controversy over that article definitely falls into this lot. Tag these with a {{move}} notice. Start a discussion on a talk page, and link to it from any other relevant categories, consider posting a note on the Village pump and/or Commons:Categories for discussion too. Let consensus develop before going on with a bot rename.

Portanto ponha um {{subst:cfd|Category:}} e portanto discuta, com outros que edita(ra)m estas páginas, a sua pretensão de mover essas duas categorias, em vez de fazer ameaças vazias, começando por você ser uma parte envolvida e não ser um administrador isento.

Mas mais grave é as suas infundadas afirmações de que eu sou "o mesmo abusador do costume" ou que sou "alguém com o historial de disrupção". Para sua informação, caso ignore, os últimos bloqueios que tive foram todos provocados por administradores arrogantes que actuaram como pode ver em User_talk:Tm#Foi_bloqueado_e_n.C3.A3o_pode_editar_en_Commons_durante_14_days, Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_64#Review_requested_of_two_week_block_of_User:Tm_for_vandalism para o último bloqueio ou User_talk:Tm#Irrelevant_editing.21 aonde pode ler que:

Block in January 15 2014, made by you Jcb blocked me and less than one hour later you unblocked me. The reason for my block and speedy unblock? Your stubborness not to delete a file that was nominated by me to speedy deletion and you kept refusing the speedy deletion request. Anyway, after being blocked and unblocked by you, the file was deleted anyway, after more user time wasted.
Block in June 13 2015 and unblocked less than a day latter. The reason? An administrator using his block hammer to win an discussion|. Why the unblock by the same administrator? Because the case came to the Village Pump and was unblocked because of what several users called conflit of interest and or administrator abuse
Block in November 16 2016, the last one. Again some bureacrat decided to follow his own rules, instead of Commons policies. Again unblocked, less than four hours latter, after several users and administrators complained of this abuse in my talk page and Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
So will you, after my contextualization, claimed that you blocked me for 1 week justifying that i´ve "been blocked so many times already for edit warring, that a week seems more appropriate than e.g. a day."
After what i showed and linked above will you still stick to what you know now to be untrue? The last time that i was blocked for edit warring was in Juanuary 5 2013. Thats almost 4 and half years ago. Will you so unblock me and so participate in the discussion in the Village Pump, or will i continuen blocked of discussion this matter, even if i participated before and aswered to the initial user that reverted my editions?
Or will you still be saying that the block is according to policy (despite i the fact that i aswered in the VP and in this page to Moheen Reeyad, or do you not care to follow the rules and policies, not giving an solid and factual block rationale, even after what is being said n the Village Pump and what i said above? Tm (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(...)

{{unblock granted|1=For the reasons stated above. Reasons for block and lenght are not true and stated in policies. See discussion above and [[Commons:Village_pump#Edit_war_by_User:Tm|Village_pump]]. [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm#top|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)|2=see below[[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)}} __________________

Ou seja vê que os bloqueios desde 2014 foram todos revertidos, por claro abuso de autoridade de administradores que se acham a cima das regras e que bloqueiam para ganhar discussões. Ou seja desde 5 de janeiro de 2013, quase 5 anos, que não sou bloqueado por ser "o mesmo abusador do costume" ou que sou "alguém com o historial de disrupção", ao contrário do que erradamente acusa.

Portanto em vez de ameaçar com o martelo do bloqueio, como outros fizeram anteriormente e foram revertidos, abra uma discussão e encontre consensos em vez de abusar dos seus poderes de administrador. Se não fizer essa página de discussão até ao final da próxima semana eu mesmo moverei novamente as duas categorias como estavam previamente, visto que:

  • 1- As categorias foram criadas por si como disse em "fui eu mesmo quem introduziu aqui"), mas não é proprietário delas, logo se as suas movimentações não fundamentadas foram revertidas abrisse uma página de discussão em vez de me ameaçar de bloqueio ou, pelo menos, explicasse cabalmente no sumário porque "listed" é superior a classified, quanto mais você não é o único a trabalhar nessas categorias (nem eu para mais).
  • 2- Tanto "classified" como "listed" são igualmente correctas e usadas em inglês britânico, logo não tem justificativa as suas movimentações, como realizou com outras, como referido acima.
  • 3- Foi revertido como um normal utilizador por outro normal utilizador, logo não pode ameaçar de bloqueio a outra parte, numa normal discussão sobre categorias, pois não houve disrupção nem bloqueio, mas apenas a aplicação do articulado em Commons:Rename a category.
  • 4- Commons:Rename a category diz que categorias existentes há vários anos ou que contenham vários items "Following the general rule" deve-se abrir uma página de discussão
  • 5- Pior é justificar um potencial bloqueio com pretensas minhas "desqualidades" que não correspondem minimamente ao real, como mostrado acima. Tm (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Moções manuais danificam todo o histórico da categoria, se quer reverter isso, tem de fazer a moção regular de categoria, e fornecer uma justificação. Há uma década pelo menos que você anda aqui, e tenho de lhe explicar as coisas como se fosse um novato? Disse e repito: Se o apanho novamente a reverter manualmente moções de categorias, para fazer as suas habituais guerras de edições para versões que você, sem nunca justificar, considera certas, leva bloqueio. E depois vá chorar para a Board dos Administradores, a ver se lho retiram. Alguém que faz o que você faz constantemente aqui, tentando conseguir tudo através da guerra da edição, não é exactamente um exemplo de COM:MELLOW. Ou você aprende as regras de boa convivência em comunidade, as chamadas normas de conduta, ou terá o resultado que sempre se aplicou aqui a esses casos. Depois de tantos anos, já vai sendo tempo.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Mais uma coisa: Da minha parte não há qualquer disputa editorial - e seria completamente ridículo que assim fosse, já que fui eu que criei o termo "classified", que você agora quer impôr à versão que está tendo uso generalizado, "listed". Eu quase sozinho fiz a organização do património português classificado - e agora ando no brasileiro, mas algum dia voltarei ao português, e pode ter a certeza que da minha parte o uso desse termo - que eu mesmo criei provisoriamente anos atrás, porque não havia nenhum outro - será descontinuado em prol do termo de uso geral. Por isso, das duas uma: Ou você quer mesmo manter esse termo "classified", e mete as mãos na massa, e faz alguma coisa construtiva, dedicando-se à classificação, em vez de somente reverter de modo abrutalhado o trabalho que os outros fazem, ou quando eu voltar tudo isso será inundado por um oceano de "listeds", que tornará a actual categorização completamente inconsistente e notoriamente fora de padrão. Em todo o caso, e absolutamente indiferente a essa situação, caso mesmo depois de avisado insista em mover essas categorias por copy paste, sem usar o procedimento habitual, danificando todo o histórico, será bloqueado.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

what morale crusade are you speaking about ?[edit]

there is no morale crusade im just free to tell my opinion, you compeltly know that some relegious prohibits such materials that's all it about, be respectful please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadbl (talk • contribs) 11:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Monte Palace Tropical Garden DSCF0170 (4642532845).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Monte Palace Tropical Garden DSCF0170 (4642532845).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

2003:DC:673B:DC00:AD9C:A85B:F97C:43F7 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Madrid - 133 (3467034080).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Madrid - 133 (3467034080).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Txitxo1 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons newsletter, December 13, 2017[edit]

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests
A multi-licensed image on Wikimedia Commons, with a custom {{EthnologyItemMHNT}} Information template. Do you also know media files on Commons that will be interesting or challenging to model with structured data? Add them to the Interesting Commons files page.
Presentations / Press / Events
Presentation about Structured Commons and Wikidata, at WikimediaCon in Berlin.
  • Sandra presented the plans for Structured Commons during WikidataCon in Berlin, on October 29. The presentation focused on collaboration between the Wikidata and Commons communities. You can see the full video here.
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
Research
  • Research findings from interviews and surveys of GLAM project participants are being published to the research page. Check back over the next few weeks as additional details (notes, quotes, charts, blog posts, and slide decks) will be added to or linked from that page.
Development
  • The Structured Commons team has written and submitted a report about the first nine months of work on the project to its funders, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The 53-page report, published on November 1, is available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • The team has started working on designs for changes to the upload wizard (T182019).
  • We started preliminary work to prototype changes for file info pages.
  • Work on the MediaInfo extension is ongoing (T176012).
  • The team is continuing its work on baseline metrics on Commons, in order to be able to measure the effectiveness of structured data on Commons. (T174519)
  • Upcoming: in the first half of 2018, the first prototypes and design sketches for file pages, the UploadWizard, and for search will be published for discussion and feedback!
Stay up to date!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 16:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Harriet Sugarcookie at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2016 (25638308826).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Harriet Sugarcookie at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2016 (25638308826).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Trivialist (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you overcategorize the files from the Caramulo Motorfestival category?[edit]

Hello TM!
I removed on purpose the Caramulo category from each file already present in the Caramulo Motorfestival direct subcategory. So why did you gave it back, overcategorizing again more than 300 files? If you forgot it, please read again the explanation about over-categorization in Commons help page.
I'll remove again the superfluous parent category, and I hope you won't add it back again. Let's follow Commons official policy, please.
Regards, BarnCas (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This images do not show only the Caramulo Motorfestival, but also streets and the automobile museum, so they are not overcategorized. Tm (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Dover Castle (EH) 20-04-2012 (7216967066).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Dover Castle (EH) 20-04-2012 (7216967066).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

PMDB[edit]

Hi The name have been changed 12 days ago to MDB. Please reverse your name change. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The name is still not official, pending approval of the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. Tm (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Lisbon, Museu Nacional dos Coches, coach for the president of the republic.JPG[edit]

I apologise for offending. Is there a particular reason you want the categorisation in this very unusual manner? If you tell me then I won't make the same mistake. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Always Remember May 15 1943[edit]

I have 2 original copys of this Leaf Let. Is there any value. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:1:C6AD:A681:14FD:FF3C:839A:F80 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Konica Auto S3 test shots (30) (7550773534).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Konica Auto S3 test shots (30) (7550773534).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2018 (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 | Български | 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, Ruthven (msg) 11:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Portugal 20170511 143337 (33950070113).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Portugal 20170511 143337 (33950070113).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

File:2002 Cabo da Roca (37) (4307285134).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:2002 Cabo da Roca (37) (4307285134).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Kulmalukko (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Male politicians of Germany[edit]

Hi Tm, you refilled that category shortly after I moved the content following this discussion. Please voice your objections there (use English if you want). Viele Grüße, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please let me remind you that I´ve asked you for reasons why you have reverted my edits. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Santuário_do_Bom_Jesus_do_Monte[edit]

Auntof6 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Kees Koolen[edit]

Hi User:Tm, why did you revert my edit of File:1601MBeek10027 (24751319676).jpg? In my view, the cropped image makes it more clear who the person is. The old picture had to much empty background.

Poppo154 (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding irrelevant categories just to make a point[edit]

Please stop adding irrelevant categories just to make a point such as you did here. If you don't know what you are doing, perhaps you shouldn't do something. - Takeaway (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2018 (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 | Български | 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, Discasto talk 21:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Selena Gomez Stars Dance San Diego MVI 0446 (10899925883).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Selena Gomez Stars Dance San Diego MVI 0446 (10899925883).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

TrashCollector (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Justin Bieber -DSC 0634-10.20.12 (8107449657).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Justin Bieber -DSC 0634-10.20.12 (8107449657).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

TrashCollector (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Evelina Pereira.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Evelina Pereira.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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

Russweber (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Algarve portugal 251 (22350936098).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Algarve portugal 251 (22350936098).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

B dash (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Algarve portugal 252 (22351854149).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Algarve portugal 252 (22351854149).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

B dash (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Algarve Praia da Luz portugal 799 (21908562853).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Algarve Praia da Luz portugal 799 (21908562853).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 | Български | 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)‎ | +/−

B dash (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)