User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2011

User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

File:Air Force Office of Special Investigations report of investigative activity -- summary of February 2003 interrogation video.pdf[edit]

File:Air Force Office of Special Investigations report of investigative activity -- summary of February 2003 interrogation video.pdf 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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

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

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

TucsonDavidGOD BLESS THE U.S.A. 10:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schapelle Corby.jpg[edit]

Is realted to a bad flickr user, one of the images from that flickr user, File:Dragging Guantanamo captive.jpg, has been uploaded by you. I know you are an expert on this and may know any person who ever made a photo at Guantanamo, so can you review that upload? --Martin H. (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baby horned larks. in Nunavut.jpg[edit]

Isn't "240 × 153 pixels, file size: 41 KB" a bit small ? Larger sizes can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/31856336@N03/5271492628/sizes/

Teofilo (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's clever. Thank you for the explanation. Teofilo (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion request[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, Category:O'Kelly's pub, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umar_Patek_(aka)_Umar_Kecil_2.jpg[edit]

File:Umar_Patek_(aka)_Umar_Kecil_2.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Firefighters at fire, Montreal harbour, about 1920.jpg[edit]

While I have no qualms with the actual move, QC is the recognized and widely-used short form for the province of Quebec, not Quebec City. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify. I don't think it's a good idea to be using short forms like QC on Commons - someone from Italy, for example, might not have any idea what Ont., Nfld., NL, BC, T.O., Sask., etc. mean. I typically replace them whenever I see them in image descriptions. So I think your move was a good one. But it's a clarity issue, not one of correctness - Montreal being in QC isn't actually incorrect. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"QC is the recognized and widely-used short form for the province of Quebec, not Quebec City..." OK. That is interesting.

Some major cities have obscure namesakes. There is a Halifax in the UK as well as in Nova Scotia. London England is more important than London Ontario. Sydney Australia is more important than Sydney Nova Scotia. But I believe there is only one Montreal. If you think disambiguation would be helpful I will be happy to add Quebec to the name.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my comments have been confusing from the first moment I started to type here. Apologies. No, I didn't mean disambiguation was necessary here. In fact, quite the opposite. It's fine just referring to Montreal. The place for additional details is in the image description. I was just saying that QC means Quebec, not Quebec City. A minor point which I have now managed to belabour way beyond necessary. Oh well. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Your yinfo on QC was interesting and worth repeating. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:O'Kelly's pub, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base[edit]

Category:O'Kelly's pub, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— Jeff G. ツ 16:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norwegian_Navy_Patrol_boat_Storm.jpg[edit]

Why did you shrink the file KNM Storm that radically on February 3, 2011? This file is used in the english, the german and the chinese Wikipedia, but it is not suitable for this anymore. I'm looking forward to your reply. --Seadart (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that would be pilot error on my part. About 14 months ago I started leaving a note thanking the flickr uploader every time I uploaded flickr image to the commons. The presence of the thank you helps prevent me from trying to upload images twice. This image predates my routine thank you notes by a couple of weeks. I would have expected the commons from warning me that I was uploading an image over an existing image, but I don`t remember seeing that warning.

If I ever make this kind of mistake, or anyone else does, there is a button next to the images at the bottom of the info page, that lets you revert to earlier images.

My apologies for any extra work I made you do.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific when categorising images[edit]

I have recategorised several of the images which you have uploaded to wikimedia commons to their proper, specific, categories. Please try to find the most specific category. To name a few examples: not Category:Sunsets but Category:Sunsets of Toronto, not Category:Skylines but Category:Skyline of Toronto. And if a specific category is a subcategory of another category, only place the file in the specific subcategory, not also in the main category as per COM:OVERCAT. Thanks in advance. - Takeaway (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Military_working_dog_in_Afghanistan_and_young_handler.jpg[edit]

File:Military_working_dog_in_Afghanistan_and_young_handler.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

edward (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GTMO-WH-fact-sheet-3-7-11.pdf[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

File:New Actions on Guantanamo Bay and Detainee Policy (2011-03-07).jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Category:Riverboats[edit]

Category discussion notification

Category:Riverboats has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

NVO (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frozen_rivers_of_the_European_Union[edit]

Category discussion notification

Category:Frozen_rivers_of_the_European_Union has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

80.187.106.21 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Installing_weapons_on_the_USS_San_Antanio.jpg[edit]

File:Installing_weapons_on_the_USS_San_Antanio.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BrokenSphere (Talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Revenue Cutter Tuscarora.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

File:Revenue Cutter Service training vessel Itasca.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

File:Cadets drill on the parade ground at the Revenue Cutter School of Instruction, Fort Trumbull.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

File:The Statue of Liberty welcomed Forrestal (CV-59) as she visited New York for Fleet Week ’89, on 29 April 1989. PHCM Dittmar, Department of Defense (Navy) Photo No. DN-SC-89-09261..jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Image rendering[edit]

I just used google docs to create those files. :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Schanlaub[edit]

I haven't looked at all of these images, but many of them were uploaded directly by John, they weren't transferred from Flickr by a third party. AIUI, Commons has rather more of a warning about the irrevocability of a licence than Flickr does (as this is more of an issue here, those being the only possible licences). However we also have so many warnings and message boxes, that they all tend to blur into one. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He directly uploaded 34 himself. He tried to revert the tag left by {{Flickrreview}} on a larger number of his images, uploaded by other people. A couple of administrators re-reverted those changes. I didn`t add those images to the deletion discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question that I would like to ask. I have 3 photos here that clearly show people's faces. They are photos taken at the Farmers Market,Civil War cannon and two gentlemen playing street music. I do not have signed model releases from these people and I don't know who they are. If these photos were downloaded and used in a commercial venture, would we be in harms way because of the individuals privacy rights? How about their right of publicity? I read an article written by an attorney that deals in legal needs of photographers and she brings up some interesting facts. Even though I licensed the photos CC Attribution I have no way of waiving the subjects privacy rights or right of publicity. I also do not have a signed property release for the tanks at the armor museum. This is a recognizable museum and I don't have their permission for commercial use. This is the URL to the short article if you would like to read it. I'm trying to educate myself on these things as I have a way of getting into trouble easily. http://rising.blackstar.com/can-i-use-a-creative-commons-photo-without-a-model-release.html John Schanlaub (talk)
- We have a "{{Personality rights}}" tag -- it says it is the responsibility of the end-user to ensure the personality rights of individuals are not being violated.
- I am not that well informed on when and if this tag is required, or recommened. But none of my images show people, so it hasn't been necessary for me. My understanding is that when an image incidentally shows someone, but it is taken in a public place, there was no expectation of privacy, and the individuals' explicit permission is not required.
- If you have concerns, list the files' names here, and I will add that tag. If you are really concerned, you could re-nominate those three images for deletion, based on your concern over the personality rights of the persons depicted.
- I am going to assume that your final comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:X14.jpg is as close as you planned to come to apologizing for your name-calling. Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct on the public place situation,George. A release is never required to take a photo, the problem is how it is used later. I believe it is a case of association, the general rule is to consider whether the use of a photo would imply that the subject "agrees with" or is a "sponsor of" the user of the photo. People are entitled to control how their "likeness" is used for the purpose of promoting a product, idea, political or religious view..or to imply support of any of these. A release would be required if their likeness was used in this manner regardless whether the photo was taken in a public place or not. If the photographer notifies the user that there is no release for the photo, the responsibility transfers to the user to understand the limitations of it's use.
    I was reading an article today on the Creative Commons page about the 2007 lawsuit over a situation similar to what I am talking about. (URL BELOW) https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680
    I found 323 photos of mine on everystockphoto.com which had been uploaded by their robot from Flickr. I told them today that I had changed the license and I had closed my Flickr account. They deleted all my images and stated they like to respect the wishes of the photographer. I was pleasantly surprised by their business ethic and respect for the wishes of the photographer. There are millions of photos on the web for the taking anyway, why worry about a couple hundred.
    John Schanlaub (talk)
  This is a list of my photos that have recognizable faces. A tag might be a good idea to avoid responsibility in case of misuse.
  It's not copyright that concerns me, it's the right of privacy and publicity of the subjects in the photos that could be a problem. Better safe than sorry. John Schanlaub (talk)

Done.
File:Farmers Market.jpg had already had the tag added. You spelled File:55 Chevy.jpg and File:Model Locomotive.jpg incorrectly. Geo Swan (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to assume that your final comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:X14.jpg is as close as you planned to come to apologizing for your name-calling. I believe Andy and I bent over backwards to be polite to you. In the deletion discussion you described yourself as someone who liked to be thanked, and liked to have your work appreciated.
I am going to remind you that I did thank you. I explicitly thanked you on April 7th, when I took your CC liscense at face value, and uploaded one of your images here. Following your attempts to revoke your liscenses I explicitly described your photos as "very fine" photos in several comments. You were thanked. We did show appreciation for your work. Geo Swan (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680. I agree with the opinion stated there that those who drafted the CC liscense weren't liable.
Just as those you drafted the answers in the CC FAQ expressed regret that a photographer expressed dissatisfaction and described not understanding the liscense they used, several of us here, including Andy and myself, expressed our regret that you described dissatisfaction. Both Andy and myself spoke about further measures to prevent photographers like yourself being confused. I think we should consider whether the {{Flickrreview}} robot that confirms images from flickr had used a flickr liscense compatible with our policies could take the further step of adding an acknowledgment and thank you on each image we upload.
The terms of the CC liscenses don't require every viewer inform photographers if and when they took CC liscense at face value, and uploaded one of their images. I seem to have been the first wikimedia contributor, or the first contributor from any site, to leave an explicit thank you. I reqret that. I have come across a number of contributors, at flickr, and elsewhere, who have distributed their images under a CC liscense, or a similar liscense, who have explicitly added requests that uploaders inform them when they used their images. I reqard this as a very reasonable request, and a very modest request. And, since November 2009, I do my best to always remember to take 30 seconds to explicitly thank flickr photographers, and let them know where their image was uploaded.
I have written, several times, that I think it would have been much better if the very first wikimedia contributor who uploaded one of your images had thanked you. I have written, several times, that I suspect that if the very first uploader had thanked you, you would have been flattered, and would have been cool about our uploads. And if you weren't cool, you could have changed your liscense when only one image had been uploaded -- not when over one hundred had been uploaded.
In your comment at the deletion discussion you told us that if we interacted with you, in normal circumstances, we would find you to be a nice considerate person. You acknowledged there are circumstances when you can be a "complete jerk". You blamed this on a mental health issue.
This is not the first time someone has said rude behavior was due to a mental health issue. I will repeat what I told the last guy. Very few people can claim 100 percent total mental health. What almost everyone does is do their best to keep their issues from preventing them from honoring the social contract. The last guy to make this claim, came back, and told me, over a year later, that he had taken my comments to heart, and he had been working hard, and thuoght he had succeeded in behaving better. I'd forgotten all about my comments. I had no idea he would take them seriously.
Anyhow, I encourage you to work harder to continue to comply with the social contract, in spite of whatever issues you think you have.
I encourage you to make a greater effort to own up, when you recognize behavior you wouldn't have taken, if you weren't affected by your issues. You went ballistic on Andy, based on the serious misconception he had called you "an old chestnut". You might consider starting there. Geo Swan (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort Huachuca -a.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Please don't revert my edits[edit]

Can you please not revert like this again because first it's annoying and second it's falsifying information. Why do you add PD-Afghanistan to images taken by Americans? How does Afghanistan own legal rights to a photo taken by an American with his own camera?--Officer (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fire engines of Antarctica[edit]

Hello!

Category:Fire engines of Antarctica is in Category:Fire engines by country. But Antarctica is not a country. What do you think should be done to solve this problem? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop worrying about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geo, the comment above can be ignored. I'd suggest you are interested to solve this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our "by country" meta-categories take a very loose interpretation of "country". There just isn't a problem here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comment. It has been perceived. I'd rather talk to Geo Swan in order to solve this specific issue. --High Contrast (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

I just reopen the process and restored the category Ezarateesteban 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afghan_billboard_advertising_voting,_women_voting,_and_soldiers.jpg[edit]

File:Afghan_billboard_advertising_voting,_women_voting,_and_soldiers.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dcoetzee (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museum_train_on_the_Moscow_Metro.jpg[edit]

File:Museum_train_on_the_Moscow_Metro.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Canada[edit]

Hello. I know I left you with an unnecessarily lengthy response in Category talk:Legislative buildings in Upper Canada, but did you have any thoughts to add? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...[edit]

Category:British Rail Class 220 is a sub-category of Category:Rolling stock manufactured by Bombardier. In the photo (File:Bombardier class 220 train arrives at Stoke-on-Trent station, UK.jpg), the livery shows that the train is operated by CrossCounty. Hence it should go to Category:British Rail Class 220s in CrossCountry livery and Category:British Rail Class 220s of CrossCountry, sub-category of Category:British Rail Class 220. By this, we should not add Category:Rolling stock manufactured by Bombardier to the photo as it will lead to over-categorization of the photo.
If you need more explanation, I am willing to explain further. You can also read Help:Category#Categorization_tips for more details.--Altt311 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden and all[edit]

Hello Geo Swan, in the delete request for that famous Bin Laden picture you comment on someone pointing to the uploader's bad log without providing evidence. That someone was me. Well, if you look at the link I gave there, you'll see, for instance: "This, given your prior history on this project, should have been a prerequisite for any single word of original reporting on your part. You have, repeatedly, disrupted this project under numerous sockpuppets. When challenged on claims in relation to the location you were currently accessing the Internet from; neither visible addresses in IRC, nor those revealed whilst I retained Checkuser privilege matched with your purported location. Based on your long history of prior disruption under multiple socks, attempt to use the project as a blog host, copyright violation – repeatedly, and implications of the areas of research revealed by minor edits on other projects, you are receiving a month-long block. The interview you contributed, that was never adequately, nor competently, reviewed against credible evidence will be labelled appropriately. Repeat private messages to any regular contributor in IRC will result in you being immediately kicked and banned from the channel by the nearest operator.

Requests for this block to be reviewed should be declined, and the template restored, unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise. This userpage should not be deleted, moved, usurped, or hidden.

Flagged as known sock of S Q (talk · contribs), Saqib (talk · contribs), and Saqib Qayyum (talk · contribs), repeat IP vandal with at-will access to sufficient subnets in Pakistan to require a /10, or coarser range block.}}}"

And there is much more, much, much more. The guy seems to be basically discredited on the other Wikimedia projects, inclusively for fraud, so it was not far-fetched to doubt his bona fide here in Commons. Personally, I do believe that there is a big probability that the OTRS ticket is forged, but the uploader clean record here in Commons, along with the use of a new sock at the time, precluded any further considerations. In any case, I don't care. If Mir feels his rights are being abused, he could simply ask for the removal of the picture, so that's up to him.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the explanation. When I followed the wikinews link in the discussion I saw the same kind of bullying and newbie-bite I was subjected to by insiders there.

Personally, if I played a role in running the WMF, I'd warn the senior administrators there who insist on bullying newbies that they risk having the WMF tell the project to find a different host and different sponsors, as the WMF only supports projects that observe a basic level of civility. Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about bullying... Though I have been at peace here in Commons most of the times, I've had this most unfortunate episode in the French Wikipedia where I was basically treated as some form of inferior life, both me and my country were ridiculed, and almost got banned from that project, due to prejudice, misunderstanding and arrogance of the elders. Even had to endure xenophobic remarks by a local bureaucrat (now a steward). A very painful experience.

Nevertheless, this guy Saki or Saquib seems to have an history there for years now. One of his last acts seems to have been posing as a Wikimedia accredited journalist in an interview with the CC founder (which went less than perfectly) and creating a big mess out of it. He seems to have an aspiration to be a real journalist, and many of his attitudes seem to reflect that, including the gathering of this very valuable Mir photo of Bin Laden. As I said, he looks like the kind of guy who could be bold and convincing enough to get the photo from Mir, and the kind of guy who would forge the whole transaction as well. It's my personal opinion, of course, and without further elements, and not even the participation of Saqib in the discussion, I'll go for wathever the OTRS people decide.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the basic policies on these sites is that contributors are all expected to do their best to interact in a civil and collegial fashion -- that we are supposed to try to cultivate a culture of civility. Unfortunately, in my experience, subcultures of incivility have cropped up in the deletion fora, that are so well established that personal attacks are routine. Personal attacks are so routine on the English language wikipedia that they pass without comment, and apparently without notice.

Unfortunately there are a few of the English language wikipedia's administrators who are among the worst offenders -- who seem to think being entrusted with administrator authority has freed them from any obligation to be civil. Geo Swan (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Indeed, I've had a recent experience in a deletion request which bordered personal attacks, to say the least, and they seemed to came out of the blue, and from people in positions of high responsibility from whom a different behaviour would have been expected. However, I come from an home wiki were people tend to be overpicky with "personal attacks", asking for blocks left and right with the most petty reasons, which can be quite tiresome. Therefore, I tend to regard the apparent laxity of Commons more like a picturesque trait of no great significance, since crass and continued offences will still be punished in the end, often with a ban. Nevertheless, it could be fairly expected, I believe, that if we cling to civilized manners, despite whatever would be on the opposite side, eventually civilization would prevail over barbarity. Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Department of Defense Detainee Program 2006-09-05.pdf[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

File:Abu_Zubaida_interrogation_photo_-c.jpg[edit]

File:Abu_Zubaida_interrogation_photo_-c.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.110.67 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guantanamo captives' biopix[edit]

Hello!

What are "biopix"? Is "biopix" the fancy short form of another word? --High Contrast (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. You are absolutely correct that this is not a transparent term, and it should be replaced with a term more easily understandable. Please forgive this oversight on my part. Would you agree to renaming the category to something like Category:Guantanamo captives' portrait photos?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But the subcategories must get renamed as well. Do you insert the {{Rename}}-tag, please? --High Contrast (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these edits ([1], [2]) all that you think is required to set in motion the process of renaming these categories? Is there a robot which will change the categories, on the individual images, when a {{Category redirect}} is applied to the old category? Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made this edit. The CommonsDelinker is the proper slave to handle this. But I fear it will take some hours. This bot has obviously a respectable backlog. I will have a look on it. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Geo Swan (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ISN_1001.jpg[edit]

File:ISN_1001.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

182.71.254.46 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure_craft_on_the_Hudson_River[edit]

Pleasure_craft_on_the_Hudson_River 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 gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Vibhijain (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fireboat number one of Tacoma Washington -c.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 23:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Fireboat number one of Tacoma Washington -b.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 23:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Hand_grenades[edit]

Category discussion notification

Category:Hand_grenades has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

NVO (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion of FOIA documents[edit]

Hi, Geo_Swan. Thanks for your note of support. Busy today, but will get back to you this evening. (I had planned to add another commment to the deletion pages, but the files were deleted before I could do so.) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Forgot to tack on my user info. The sockpuppetry thing was simply ignorance and/or stupidity on my part... I'll be happy to explain. I'm not sure how to e-mail you..., but I'll try to figure it out. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I e-mail you? Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geo_Swan, I finally spotted the e-mail link. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anal 3.jpg[edit]

Question - How does a picture on wiki commons of a person jamming something into his asshole help "millions of avoidable deaths" and prevent "millions of babies and mothers die at birth"? What does a man inserting something into his rectum have to do with "expectant mothers of all sizes, shapes, ages, health and ethnic group"? What lesson on human sexuality "intended to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted" does asshole jamming of foreign objects teach? Please educate me on how taking a random household item and putting up your ass prevents sexually transmitted diseases? Could you please list just one credible source that would attest to this. If it is true, then they must be sources out there, maybe the National Institute of Health, maybe Harvard University? Just give me one source to support your "jam stuff in your asshole to save a life" and the need to spread the word on wiki commons about this theory.

--Hold and wave (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ask a number of questions:

How does a picture on wiki commons of a person jamming something into his asshole help "millions of avoidable deaths" and prevent "millions of babies and mothers die at birth"?
What does a man inserting something into his rectum have to do with "expectant mothers of all sizes, shapes, ages, health and ethnic group"?
What lesson on human sexuality "intended to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted" does asshole jamming of foreign objects teach?
Could you please list just one credible source that would attest to this believe I have already answered all these questions.
Please educate me on how taking a random household item and putting up your ass prevents sexually transmitted diseases?

I believe I already addressed the issues in your first three questions.

WRT your fourth question, perhaps you weren't aware that many contributors find it useful to do their own research? It took about twenty seconds to do this search.

WRT your fifth question -- sex toys, at least the premium ones, I have been informed, can be sterilized. Safe sex. The private parts of infected individuals however can not. Geo Swan (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Geo Swan/archive. You have new messages at Tabercil's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Re: please be more careful[edit]

	Hello, Geo Swan/archive. You have new messages at Mmxx's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

■ MMXX ^talk 22:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons deletions[edit]

Hello. Thanks for the note. I never said that his failure to leave a meaninful explanation was acceptable. In fact, the whole point of my comments to him on his talk page was to try and get him to leave a more fulsome explanation. As to his decision to keep, that was his decision to make. I neither agreed nor disagreed, as I was completely undecided (every time I looked at the images I came to a different conclusion - very borderline). Because Jcb did not want to elaborate on his decision, I ultimately renominated the images, and they were eventually deleted.

I have in the past questioned some of his deletion discussion closures, although to be fair DR is an area where closing admins are unlikely to make friends. As it happens, yesterday I was looking at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jewish Star Calgary19800822 front page.jpg, where his closing comment suggests that Jcb misunderstood the grounds for the proposed deletion. Again, to be fair, I have also closed/commented on DRs where I have misconstrued some key fact, so he didn't do anything in that discussion that I also have not done. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

Hi. I just noticed the note you left for me. I will respond shortly. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...[edit]

Why do you use the ISN number instead of the name of the individuals? Are these people just numbers for you? Iqinn (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Geo Swan/wl 2011 05 03#explanation. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-07#Request to undelete some redirects... where another contributor wrote: "Tell your critic that the file name is not being used to identify a person but simply a document. Identifying people with names used by their captors is not really giving respect to their identity as a person - to truely respect their identity I would use their names in whatever language the individual normally uses, but that doesn't appear to be included in these records."

The initial deletion -- Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan -- was flawed. The closing administrator's decision to close as delete was flawed. If it had been closed rapidly I would have renamed each of the files to a name like File:ISN_00004_Abdul_Haq_Wasiq.jpg, File:ISN_00006_Norullah_Nori.jpg, File:ISN_00027_Uthman_Abd_al-Rahm.jpg, File:ISN_00028_Muaz_Hamza_Ahmad_al-Said.jpg, File:ISN_01017_Omar_Muhammad_Ali_Al_Rammah.jpg, File:ISN_01030_Abdul_Hafiz.jpg. It would have been about ten times as convenient to rename them at the moment the upload succeeded, and I had the individual' reference name right on my clipboard. I didn't rename any of the files while the initial deletion discussion, and the subsequent deletion review were open. The deletion review wasn't closed for almost two months, and I had uploaded all 1000 files by that time.

I am prepared to make the effort to answer your question, "Are these people just numbers for you?" -- as soon as you clarify what you are asking. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file name should not have the ISN number in it at all as it is dehumanizing and problematic under WP:BLP. Are you going to rename the images accordingly? Iqinn (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that your comment "Are these people just numbers for you?" gives the appearance that you are POV-pushing. I have given you the opportunity to clarify the intent of your question, in case you meant something else. You have not chosen to offer another meaning.

I am afraid you don't know how disrespectful it appears when your replies ignore your correspondents' civilly expressed counter-points.

Please understand that the brevity of your reply gives the appearance you can't offer a meaningful response. Geo Swan (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are well know for BLP violations. I am asking you again. The file name should not have the ISN number in it at all as it is dehumanizing and problematic under WP:BLP. Are you going to rename the images accordingly? Iqinn (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn - please share the phrasing from BLP that you are referring to. Using the numbers for a filename doesn't seem to violate COM:BLP (which is only a proposal), wmf:BLP (a generic Wikimedia-wide BLP policy), or even w:WP:BLP (which only applies to en.wiki, not to Commons). If you could share the particular phrasing from the policy which concerns you, it would make it easier to resolve this issue. Thanks! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher - that COM does not has a valid BLP Policy to protect living people is already a violation of wmf:BLP. wmf:BLP sets the framework and there seems to be a strong consensus in the community that we take the rights of living individuals very serious in all of our projects. The topic here is that naming the images of individuals with their prison number instead of their real name is dehumanizing and should not be done. Iqinn (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WRT your "dehumanizing" concern -- you have raised this concern literally dozens of times. But I do not remember you ever offered a policy based justification for this concern.

For all I know, if you really were able to make the effort to offer a clear policy based explanation of what you mean by dehumanizing, and how you think it lapses from policy, you might convince me.

Listen, I know you feel very strongly on this issue. But please understand -- your strong feelings on this issue count for nothing if you can't offer a meaningful explanation as to how the names you object to violate policy. Philosopher, an uninvolved third party, requested you point us to the sections of policy that back up your concern. Aren't you worried that by not quoting the specific passages you rick eroding your credibility? Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering again? Don't you think you rick eroding your credibility by telling that you do not know what dehumanizing means? Do you think it is ok to dehumanize living people? Do you dispute that using the prison numbers instead of their real names is dehumanizing? Iqinn (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) Holding back from responding in kind to your provocations is an incredible burden.
I know the standard meaning of dehumanizing. What I don't understand is (1) your non-standard definition of dehumanizing; (2) the policy or policies you think you can cite to justify your choice of names; (3) why you think you can characterize civil, sincere, good faith discussions of policy as "wikilawyering".
WRT your question as to whether I want to dehumanize the captives -- I know you have reviewed the recently published detainee assessment briefs, because you referenced those documents when uploaded some of the portrait photos they included. Most of the DABs listed multiple aliases for the captives. And, for many of the captives, the names in the DAB differed from the names in the previously published official lists. For this reason it is absolutely essential that these file names contain the ISN. So, your choice, where you strip the file names of the ID numkers essential to distinguish one captive from another obfuscates their identities. Other contributors have suggested to you that it is the identity erasure you have pushed so strongly for that is the truly dehumanizing act. Geo Swan (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) Once again you do not answer the questions regarding the content and instead uses ad hominem arguments. No there is no reason for almost all of these individuals not to use the names of these individuals. Do you dispute that using the prison numbers instead of their real names is dehumanizing? Please answer. Iqinn (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, as in practically every discussion we have had, I have given you full, civil answers. As in practically every discussion, it seems to me, you have been unwilling or unable to answer my civil questions. In particular, you have never been able to offer a civil, policy-based explanation as to why we should obfuscate the identities of these individuals. Geo Swan (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not answer the listed questions above and i have never been unwilling to answer your questions. So why don't you just answer my questions? Iqinn (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loading_the_HNLMS_Pelikaan_at_Guantanamo,_to_support_Haiti_earthquake_relief.jpg[edit]

File:Loading_the_HNLMS_Pelikaan_at_Guantanamo,_to_support_Haiti_earthquake_relief.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Benchill (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CIA_mugshot_of_Zubair.jpg[edit]

File:CIA_mugshot_of_Zubair.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

91.57.66.223 06:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fireboats in British Columbia[edit]

Hello!

It is somehow strange how you choose your category names: once you use the short cut of "British Columbia" (example Category:Fireboats in Vancouver, BC) and once you use the complete name (example Category:Fireboats in Victoria, British Columbia). Is there any very complex system behind, I cannot see? Or what's wrong? --High Contrast (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hidden meanings. Some months passed between when I started the categories. You can chalk this up to normal human inconsistency. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then find out out which of the two alternatives is more appropriate and create a consistent category tree. --High Contrast (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Atiyah Abd al-Rahman 1.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Atiyah Abd al-Rahman 1.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Atiyah Abd al-Rahman 1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable sexuality[edit]

Superb! NVO (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name

--Stunteltje (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the support. "names that apply to all ships and ship-like vessels, and which do not require specialized knowledge of local naming conventions." --Stunteltje (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brilliante Virtuoso rescue -e.jpg[edit]

This file appears to have been truncated during upload but its a higher res than the other versions. Please try again.Dankarl (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohammed_Hagi_Fiz_and_Jan_Mohammed_-b.jpg[edit]

File:Mohammed_Hagi_Fiz_and_Jan_Mohammed_-b.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar

I appreciate the way that you clearly stated your view of why sexual content should be available. [3]. "Please remember that 3.5 billion males live on planet Earth. A very large fraction of those males are too young to have had sexual relations, so don't know what female genitals look like. Another large fraction have had sexual relations -- but always in the dark. They too won't know what female genitals look like. And, of the remainder of men, their experiences of sex will have been in conditions of low light, or when some other concerns were preoccupying them, and they weren't paying close attention to the appearance of their partner's anatomy. Almost every male would benefit from access to a good, well-lit, clinical picture of female anatomy, particularly if it had all the organs labeled. The 3.5 billion women probably include a large fraction who would benefit from a clinical image, so they could reach an informed opinion as to whether their organs were normal." We may not agree with each other about whether an particular image should be kept, but we both agree that we need a good selection of high quality images for the reasons that you stated so well. Keep on discussing your opinion so that we are better able to reach consensus. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton[edit]

I'm pretty sure that the car in question is Hanover #601, which belongs to the society. I also can't find any sources which suggest that ETS runs anything other than Siemens LRVs. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Dawn Dumont[edit]

Hi Geo Swan,

I noticed that you cropped the photo on the Dawn Dumont page. I am Dawn Dumont and I would really like that photo taken down but i do not have the permissions to do so. Can you please remove it? Or let me know how I get it taken down?

Thank you.

Dawn

Greetings!

First, let me congratulate you on having an interesting career. I am the primary author of the wikipedia articles Dawn Dumont, Okanese First Nation, Connie Walker and Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier. I was touched by a profile of Ms Walker, on a visit to her family home, and decided to learn more about the Okanese First Nation. That is how I came across you and Ms Walker-Pelletier. I created all four articles at the same time. I enjoyed doing so, and wish the three of you every success.

I am sorry to tell you that the wikimedia commons is not like flickr, or facebook -- while I uploaded the image I don't control it. I don't have permission to delete it myself. I can initiate a discussion to get it deleted, where you could explain why you want it deleted.

I recently went on record in several other discussions, telling other contributors that we generally don't delete older images when newer images arrive. So I can't argue for deleting the original images, without contradicting myself. I will argue for using your preferred image if anyone wants to use one of the other images.

While I will argue for your preferred image, personally I prefer the original image. They are both flattering images, that show you are a beautiful young woman, but I think your intelligent shows more in the original. In my opinion you also look more genuinely joyful in the original.

Ms Dumont, if you keep a clipping file, feel free to let me know about any articles that touch on your career, that I didn't include in your article. If I think I can use them to expand your article, while complying with our rules, I'd be happy to do so.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bouquet versus Rothesay Castle[edit]

I experienced a problem with File:Ferry Bouquet on the Great Lakes.jpg, as the title doesn't match the illustration. The title maches with the second thumbnail: Bouquet. I found information for the Bouquet as: Bouquet (0634) 82x18x6 Owned by J. J. Dickinson, Cornwall Ont. 1860; to J. Sutter, Toronto 1866; to R. W. Parkinson, Toronto 1869, 1874; J. O. Glendinning, Toronto 1877. New engine 1876: 20x42 by Inglis & Hunter, Toronto (to "Canadian"). Ran on Upper St. Lawrence; to Toronto ferry 1866. Was to have been renamed "Emma" 1870 but wasn’t. Broken up 1882. Hull partly blown up as attraction August 1884; remains still sunk in island backwater 1889. On [4]. Information on the Rothsay Castle on [5] at "View pictures here". So I categorised the image as Rothesay Castle (ship, 1861), as further information lacks at that site. How to proceed, renaming and/or re-uploading the image of the Bouquet? By the way - I saw your barnstar - congratulations. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dawn dumont[edit]

	picture
	Please take down the picture you have posted to the wikipedia page under Dawn Dumont. Dawnmarie11 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm curious as to why you acceded to this request and also had the article deleted - from what I understood, this person was notable and the article contained nothing objectionable. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Two reasons, no three reasons:

I figured her notability was right on the cusp, and if an {{Afd}} was initiated her opposition would push the article over the edge, to deletion;
After doing all that work, I felt sympathetic to Ms Dumont;
After doing all that work, I am put out that Ms Dumont characterized my efforts as possibly malicious.
I think there is a chance that, if she really does ask for advice, many of her friends and colleagues will tell her she would be well advised to ask for the article to be restored.

You wrote well, and I agreed with everything you wrote. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. I hope you didn't feel my response wasted your time. Geo Swan (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

	Hello, Geo Swan/archive. You have new messages at Captain-tucker's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Comment[edit]

I believe that Admin MGA73 or MBisanz once told me that an image should haver 1 license. But, you're right. I have seen some image with multiple free licenses. So, I'll revert my edit in the 2 pictures I marked. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File missing[edit]

Please re-upload this file -> File:Sunset in Prince Rupert -b. Your previous upload seems to have failed. - Takeaway (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:USCGC Storis in choppy waves.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 08:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:USCGC Storis in choppy waves.jpg[edit]

Hello!

The licence tag for this file is broken. Can you fix it, pleae? Thanks in advance, High Contrast (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:First 2 National Security cutters, the Bertholf and Waesche, cruise together.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 08:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Watersheds[edit]

Hi, this clearly sound like an inconsistence due to some dispute between americans/canadians. In fact i'm more focused in regrouping files about rivers maps all over the world; that because for non english speakers could be really hard to find maps about rivers if they're sparsed in a lot of categories because of political boundaries (let's think about Donau/Duna in europe). Some of them are included in "river maps", some other in "watersheds", and some are sparsed inside "rivers of xxx country" categories, and so on. I'm trying to differenciate maps by this criteria:

the ones about rives paths, from the ones about river basins (areas)
and the ones limited to a single country/state (or other administrative subdivision) focusing, from the ones about all the watersheds.

With this goals in mind i start to create some subcategories by continent, of course files related to different countries have to be classified too in their respective subcategories by country. So i.e. Yukon river have to be both in "maps of Canadian rivers", "Maps of rivers of the United states" and "Drainage basin maps of North America" (at least till some more specific subcategories like "drainage basin maps of Canada" or "Drainage basin maps of Alaska" are created). I thank you for noted this dicrepancy, and i hope you will give some suggestion about this little reordering project. Ciaurlec (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made some of these maps. I made them prior

I am not aware of Category:River maps. It is my understanding that a river's watershed, and its basin are synonymous. I think there could be a third synonym out there. If these terms are truly synonums then we should choose one synonym and use it in all the category names.

For what it is worth I am quite concerned about how we use categories here, and on the various wikipedias.

Categories don't keep any memory of which files, articles or subcategories have been held in a category. You may have experienced this yourself: (1) some newbie doesn't like an existing category name, and starts a parallel category; (2) they take all the elements out of the original category and place them in the new parallel category; (3) an administrator comes along and deleltes the original category, on the grounds it is empty and unused.
Categories don't provide a mechanism for the contributor who added an element to document why they think it belongs. Granted this is more of a problem on the wikipedias.
In practice categories suffer from definition creep.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clip_from_a_video_said_to_be_anonymously_released_by_the_East_Turkestan_Islamic_Party.jpg[edit]

File:Clip_from_a_video_said_to_be_anonymously_released_by_the_East_Turkestan_Islamic_Party.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

124.244.189.247 02:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The My God What a Wall of Text Barnstar, I mean, I've seen War and Peace, but damn mate, you make that look like a Spot the Dog book. I was just so overwhelmed by its sheer immensity I had to pop myself a beer. Because on that hallowed ground, open ok enough with copyvioing Weird Al, really that was a big wall of text and I am truly impressed, both by you and anyone who actually reads it. Way to go me! For your impressively large contribution please have this barnstarry barnstar of long-winded barnstarriness. Go Wildcats!

Barnstarrystarrynight -mattbuck (Talk) 14:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the size of this barnstar. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb de-admin[edit]

Geo Swan, I would ask you to reconsider to recent habit to comment every not-remove "vote" in this request. Our bureaucrats aren't idiots who can't think for themselves or can't discern mere sympathy votes (which aren't invalid per se) from more substantiated votes. IMO your action is even contraproductive for your "side", as the more puffed-up the discussion becomes, the less a bureaucrat will be willing to read through the kBytes. --Túrelio (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Jcb didn't handle that situation well and you do have a valid point. I'm torn though as I know that Jcb does a lot of valuable work as an admin, and generally seems to be thoughtful in his actions. Perhaps he just needs a wikibreak. Regardless, thanks for sharing your opinions on this. Although I still feel like de-admining would be an over-reaction, I think Jcb does need to do a better job assuming good faith and communicating with editors who raise legitimate objections. Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.

I don't think de-sysopping is an over-reaction. I've been aware of his unwillingness to explain his closures since May. I have been one of the people making good faith attempts to explain to him how damaging this is. He has never acknowledged that his current behavior is problematic. Rather he claimed in the discussion he does the right thing 99.7 percent of the time(!) He had an attempt to de-sysop him in July, and the dissatisfaction expressed there did not budge him one iota. I am afraid his record suggests any expectation he is going to change, this time, is hopeless.

As for whether he has been doing such a good job, in my opinion, every contested deletion discussion, closed without explanation is an instance of him doing a bad job. His insistence of closing a disproportionate share of discussions over images of human sexuality are all instances of him doing a bad job, when his comments show he can't bring an open mind to those discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Per Nom" comments in DRs[edit]

I disagree strongly with comments you have made questioning the value of "Per nom" comments. If the nom is unknown to me and the "Per nom" comes from someone I do know, it makes it easier to close the DR. Please remember that ten Admins do 700 deletions per day (another 300 are done by the other 245 Admins) and the backlog is not shrinking. Of necessity we work fast and anything that helps that is good. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_over_Svalbard.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_over_Svalbard.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 18:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_over_the_larsen_b_ice_shelf.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_over_the_larsen_b_ice_shelf.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 18:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_Alert_Nunavut.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_Alert_Nunavut.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drake_Passage_-_Orthographic_projection.png[edit]

File:Drake_Passage_-_Orthographic_projection.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_the_Iles_Crozet.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_the_Iles_Crozet.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_on_the_South_Sandwich_Islands.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_on_the_South_Sandwich_Islands.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 18:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_South_Georgia_Island.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_South_Georgia_Island.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_Ross_Island.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_Ross_Island.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_Easter_Island.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_Easter_Island.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 19:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_centered_over_Bouvet_Island.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_centered_over_Bouvet_Island.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 19:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:0rthographic_projection_over_Austral_Island.png[edit]

File:0rthographic_projection_over_Austral_Island.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_above_St_Helena.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_above_St_Helena.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthographic_projection_over_Gough_Island.png[edit]

File:Orthographic_projection_over_Gough_Island.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

80.187.152.68 19:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of combining all these into 1 DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrreview problem at present[edit]

Dear George, Re: Emergency note.

If possible, pls. reduce your number of image uploads from other peoples accounts for a few days. The problem has nothing to do with you. Its just that the flickr review bot has been malfunctioning for 2 days now. I sent a Message to MGA73 about it and have marked some images in the overflowing 170+ image flickr review category. But once Monday starts, I can mark only a few images. If someone changes the flickr license before its reviewed of an image you uploaded, it will be failed and deleted as a copy vio sadly. I'll try to mark some of yours now...but please understand, I'm supposed to treat everyone equally. All I can is hope Bryan, the (absent) operator of the flickr bot can fix the problem as the images needing review category approaches 200 photos. Or that Admin MGA73 can reach him about it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, happy to oblige. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flickr upload bot is also AWOL, FWIW. Geo Swan (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the flickr upload too but I guess its down. Yikes! It looks like only Bryan can fix this situation. I passed your uploads, I believe in time before there were any flickr license changes. We are all waiting for Bryan to help here. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are all volunteers here. I think that when the tools are working again I should show the maintainters some wikilove. Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have to wait, I can express some appreciation now for your processing those flickr images. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem. BTW, I didn't know Jcb was de-Admined until 20 minutes ago. I was upset that Hoangquan/Bluemarble quit Commons because of his comments at the latter's RfA. Its a pity to lose someone of Bluemarble's calibre...even though I thought his RfA was a bit premature since he got his review rights only a few months ago. that was why I avoided any votes in the Jcb or Bluemarble cases although I did vote for Rillke's succesful RfA. Well, Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:USCG Dolphin helicopters.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your heads-up - it looks like I slipped up there. I'll try to correct that and any other problems at that time. Just trying to get 'em all in the right places. PeterWD (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Belay that - looks like I correctly removed it from Category:United States Coast Guard helicopters, so that it only appears in sub Category:Eurocopter HH-65 Dolphin, that is dedicated to the coast guard service. It should not be in both, and no other helicopter type is in the image; I hope you agree. PeterWD (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr upload problem?[edit]

Is there a problem with the flickr upload bot still? This image was uploaded by the flickr upload bot on November 17 with no issues. This user uploaded numerous images using the flickr upload bot on that day. Maybe it works now...which is more than I can say with the flickr review bot sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was uploaded on November 18. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I held off using the tools. I'll try the flickr upload bot tomorrow. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's fine. BTW, It looks like the flickr review bot is finally working at last. Hope this helps. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd use the flickr upload bot though as the flickr review bot still marks irregularly. It marked 9 out of 31 images just 1 hour ago. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GIs at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay’s Emergency Operations Center.jpg[edit]

The file you had uploaded was much smaller (810 × 516 pixels) and distorted (egg heads). The file uploaded by the bot has higher resolution (2,100 × 1,395 pixels) and is undistorted.
The larger file has been uploaded 10:56, 14 May 2010.
Your file has been uploaded one day later (17:54, 15 May 2010).
Of course I added the only additional category to the larger file.
I think that should be acceptable for you. -- Common Good (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jilly's,_a_bar_that_has_been_advertizing_exotic_dancers_for_at_least_four_decades,_on_Queen_Street_and_Broadview_Avenue_-b.jpg[edit]

File:Jilly's,_a_bar_that_has_been_advertizing_exotic_dancers_for_at_least_four_decades,_on_Queen_Street_and_Broadview_Avenue_-b.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Lakes Steamship Cumbria.jpg[edit]

You uploaded this image with a source as a Google book. I was hoping to add the date of construction and build location categories but the image does not occur in the pages of the book available for viewing. Do you perhaps have a real paper copy you could check? Or another source? Thanks. Rmhermen (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, but I will keep my eyes peeled. Geo Swan (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Geo Swan/archive!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Under Spadina Road, leading to Russell Hill.jpg was uncategorized on 28 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Front Facade for the Elgin and Winter Gardens theatres, Yonge Street, Toronto -c.jpg was uncategorized on 13 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Front Facade for the Elgin and Winter Gardens theatres, Yonge Street, Toronto -d.jpg was uncategorized on 13 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Box office for the Elgin and Winter Gardens theatres, Yonge Street, Toronto.jpg was uncategorized on 13 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bucuresti night club sign -b.jpg was uncategorized on 3 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Algonorth after alliding with a Toledo dock -c.jpg was uncategorized on 6 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Algonorth after alliding with a Toledo dock -d.jpg was uncategorized on 6 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Algonorth after alliding with a Toledo dock -b.jpg was uncategorized on 6 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes. No problem in making that correction. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tip[edit]

Please turn the date off on your camera. You have recently uploaded many of your own photographs which are not very usable with a date stamp. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Bernard Webber's daughter, Pattie Hamilton, stamps the keel of the vessel named after him -a.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Bernard Webber's daughter, Pattie Hamilton, stamps the keel of the vessel named after him -a.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Saibo (Δ) 02:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original caption: "Ms. Pattie Hamilton stamps the keel of the first U.S. Coast Guard Sentinel Class Fast Response Cutter during a keel laying ceremony. The first FRC is named after Ms. Hamilton's father, Petty Officer 1st Class Bernard C. Webber, who executed one of the most famous rescues in Coast Guard history. (U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Thomas M. Blue.)
" Geo Swan (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sure - but it was missing any template. Thanks for fixing! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bernard Webber's daughter, Pattie Hamilton, stamps the keel of the vessel named after him -a.jpg[edit]

Hello!

Why did you choose {{PD-USGov}} as licence instead of {{PD-USCG}} (it is obviously a Coast Guard image)? Strange because you have uploaded lots of such Coast Guard files. --High Contrast (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find {{PD-USCG}} counter-intuitive and really hard to remember. Geo Swan (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed counter-intuitive but that's no real reason not to use it. You can save that tag anywhere on your userpage so that you can find it easier. --High Contrast (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments[edit]

Hey, Geo Swan. Would you be interested in helping organize a potential Canadian component of the 2012 edition of Wiki Loves Monuments? I am compiling a list of people that have varying degrees of interest in pursuing this. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. We'll talk early in the new year. Have a good holiday. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]