User talk:Vin09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Vin09!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Categories and please avoid "over-categorization"[edit]

Hi, some categories have been tagged as {categorize}, therefore p.e. that edit has been fixed. Please also check Commons:categories and avoid so-called "over-categorization". Best regards, Roland zh (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: There's no need to also add a district's category, so a media (photo etc) already has been categorized by a subcategory (btw: most of them already in 2012) related to that district, therefore these ('many') edits of June 15, 2014, have been undone. Regards, Roland zh (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

imho not helpful re-categorizations related to Category:Andhra Pradesh, Category:Telangana, Category:Hyderabad, India etc[edit]

Hi, again, and as imho pointed before. But, honestly: asking an individual Wikimedian to name (exclusively) Category:Train stations in Andhra Pradesh, but minutes ago moving the whole related category tree to "Railway stations", what a glorious mess :-(( Why :-(( Ok, for instance, at EN-WP there are 'Railway stations', but Wikimedia Common's related category tree (for 'train' stations allover the world) is Category:Train stations. No matter whether grammatically correct, or logical, or even user-friendly... To establish a arbitrarily category tree for just one single state of India is not helpful, and imho wasting lots of your's and mine's time. Hence, please avoid such re-categorizations, and honestly, wasting time by asking individual tiny Wikimedians like me, but not discussing in general before actingnot on a personal level, instead, please use categories to be renamed, thanks, Roland zh (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Roland zh:Ok I'll follow your statements. Thanks for reply.--Vin09 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Amaravati montage.png[edit]

This media has been deleted. Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | français | italiano | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Tiếng Việt | português | +/−


Dialog-warning.svg

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Amaravati montage.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY) or BY SA (CC BY-SA) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request. Elisfkc (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This would have been allowed, except for the fact that en:File:File:Amaravati buddha.jpg is a copyright violation, because it comes from https://www.flickr.com/photos/byaditya/16473748995. Elisfkc (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: It's actually not my work, I've derived from other users. Will it be still considered as my work and any problem for me.Vin09 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The issue is the bottom right image is copyrighted. If you replace the bottom right image with a freely licensed image and reupload it, it should be ok. Elisfkc (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Montage of AP state.png[edit]

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

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


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

Gunnex (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Renaming[edit]

Hi :-)
I have declined your three requests: in my opinion the renamings weren't absolutely necessary, I'm sorry. We have a bug on Commons and some files just disappear after renaming, so it is very important to not rename if the name of the file is acceptable (maybe not the best, but quite good)... Our browser is searching both: in the filenames and in descriptions, too -- so sometimes it is better to change the description. Wieralee (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wieralee: Thanks for the info.Vin09 (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)