User talk:Josve05a/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Category:Lens focal length

Category:Lens focal length 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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 ∙ +/−

--El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dsc19960-1 Panorama, Artesa Vineyards & Winery, Napa, California, USA (4541758965).jpg

File:Dsc19960-1 Panorama, Artesa Vineyards & Winery, Napa, California, USA (4541758965).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. 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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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 ∙ +/−

Sarah (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIle:Ignacio Murillo - Furillo.jpg

You marked one of my pictures uploaded to remove . The only reason is that it appears in Google Search? Well, I uploaded the image because the authors allow him free license.

This image is prepared and licensed by its creators to be used under Creative Commons. There is no problem associated with property rights o whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjguru (talk • contribs) 13:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidjguru: Then you and the copyright owner need to read COM:OTRS. Josve05a (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion File:Dominicburns002.PNG

My image has been deleted for suspected copyright violation but it is not the case, i own the image

Please contact the deleteting admin, or seek help at the Help desk. Josve05a (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK product McDonalds 蘋果批 Apple Pie Dec-2011.jpg

File:HK product McDonalds 蘋果批 Apple Pie Dec-2011.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 ∙ +/−

Cake7545 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help defend the file

Please help defend Nicorette Nasal Spray file that you reviewed from the deletion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicorette Nasal Spray.jpg -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. I agree with all of your comments. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

So you ended up in the Commons County Jail somehow huh? I don't follow all the details, but I see it's only meant to be a week-long block. Whatever it was, I hope it's not too big a deal and you can put it behind you without too much hassle. I hope you'll be ready to come back when the week is up. Let me know by email or by posting a note here. You can always leave me a message at my talkpage on en.wiki or ru.wiki as well. Take care. INeverCry 01:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hello, only now noticed the message you left on my talk page. (Strange that I did not receive a notification by email...) The graphics I uploaded was the screen capture of a tweet on a public twitter account which had become famous and published in many newspapers (traditional and on-line) and on many blogs etc... I made that screen capture myself. For all these reasons, I am quite sure that this should be allowed on W-media. Can you confirm this ? If so, please tell me what I should have put as licence etc. (I think I put some information but did not know exactly HOW to do. IIRC I read several "manual pages" with instructions and definition of the several licences but IIRC there are two separate places where I had to specify the licence stuff and maybe I just did not fill in the right field.) Anyway, I try to contibute to the W-media database and any help to do this job, for the benefit of all, would be appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance! MFH (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read COM:DW and Commons:Screenshots. Josve05a (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Unblock request granted

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

Request reason: "Hello. Over a week ago I asked arund if Wikimedia Commons had a policy regarding legitimate usage of mutliple accounts. Turnes out they did have templates such as {{User Alternate Acc}} which linked to the policy on English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) but no policy on Commons. I boldly created the account Cake7545 (talk · contribs) in order for me to nominate files for deletion, without people knowing it was me, since a few users disagreed with my opinions regarding COM:DW etc. I successfully nominated hundreds of files for deletion and about 97% were deleted. During this time a user, Edoderoo (talk · contribs), objected to my DRs. I responded a bit harsh, perhaps boomeranging myself when I claimed that the user wasn't assuming good faith. The discussion continued and I, mistakenly, responded from my main account, this one, causing me to out myself. It was around that time I asked a known admin to self-block me for about three days so I could get some fresh air and calm my nerves. He did not want to do it, since he doesn't do self-blocks. I then asked Nick (talk · contribs) to self-block me. I got the response that since Commons doesn't have a policy on self blocks that he couldn't do it. It was then I that I shared with him the discussion I have had with Edoderoo (talk · contribs) (link above) and I said that I had abused multiple accounts which is inline with blocking policies and Nick agreed to block me. (I personally did not think it was abusing, since there were no real sockpuppeting and no real interaction between my accounts.) After my block this discussion (link) happend, which unfortunately I could not take part of/respond to. I now believe I have had enough time away from (editing) Commons (I still haven't been able to go one day without visiting)- I will not use any other account on Commons nor will I create one. I herby ask of you to unblock me. Josve05a (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Unblock reason: "AGF unblock. I talked with Nick and he is fine with a unblock. Enjoy your time here at commons :). Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

This template should be archived normally.

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

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ suomi ∙ हिन्दी ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

File:John Falcone Memorial.JPG

Hello,

I received your message in regards to my photo of the John M. Falcone memorial photo I uploaded. I wasn't aware that the sculpture of his memorial violated a copyright. I apologize for that. I took the photo myself on January 28th and uploaded it for my John M. Falcone article which I recently submitted. I thought it would be a nice addition to the article. If it's in violation then I understand why it was flagged for deletion.

Thanks for taking the time to contact me.

Jcl6543 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Cenith Air Logo

Hello

I wondered how did you know I didn't own the copyright of that logo? You show me a link from OCanadaNews, that's wonderful, but did you know the link between OCanadaNews and Cenith Air? I bet you don't know if they are the sister company, and they own the copyright of each others logo, and I bet you don't know if I am from the company, and if I own that copyright.

Goodnight Bet you don't know if my place is in the night either.

Best SCt

If you are a representative from the comapny and have permission to release the logo under a free license which allows modifications and commercial usage, please read COM:OTRS to see how to show us "evidence" of this permission. Josve05a (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bye

Issues like this make desist from work. From now on I close my account to Commons, forever. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: File:Qatar Airways Airbus A350-941 A7-ALA 15.Jan.2015 First commercial service Doha-Frankfurt (16284531971).jpg

Hi Josve05a,

It seems that Flickr user Kiefer deleted the image some minutes after being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. As is impossible to check it's licence, the file must be deleted. Cheers, --Dura-Ace (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Hello, I saw that this file was marked for deletion.I was wondering if you could provide assistance on finding the source since the user deleted their profile from Flickr. The image has been heavily used and it no longer appears anywhere else that I can find. Any help is appreciated.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 problems I can see.

The images has been deleted from Flickr, which makes it impossible for us to make a license review (and in such cases we need to follow the precautionary principle)
Wayback doe not index the image pages, only small parts of the user page [1].
The license {{Attribution}} is not avalible to pick from Flickrs licenses, only CC-BY/-SA/-NC/-ND. SO that makes it somewhat more suspicious.

Josve05a (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I added it, it was the Flickr attribution license and did not know at the time that there was a template in the Upload Wizard thing for it. For the Flickr user, this is the best I could do.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a link to where a similar image is that was taken by the original author at about the same date.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ennolenze/15945772881/in/set-72157649197989070 ? Josve05a (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That one, I'll make the change in the source. Talk you for your help!--ZiaLater (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Björn Nilsson (CEO of SJ Norrlandståg AB).jpg

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:Björn Nilsson (CEO of SJ Norrlandståg AB).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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eisenach 05-08-2014 (14660706727).jpg

File:Eisenach 05-08-2014 (14660706727).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 ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to continue...

...the wonderful world of rationalism in Italy see File:Pontinia - Chiesa di Sant'Anna.jpg but you must see every 20th-century architectures in Italy... and see w:Rationalism (architecture). Good work...--Threecharlie (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests of my images considered FOP

Hi, I'm sorry for my low level in a English conversation, but I think it is necessary that you read these links because I am firmly convinced that the position of preventive deleting images related to a non-depth knowledge of the Italian legislation on the subject of FOP is harmful to the Wikimedia projects, and a lack of respect towards users who are so assimilated to copyvioler. Legislation is already unclear for us Italians that we read and discuss with fluency in Italian, I do not think that someone from abroad have adequate expertise in considering a copyright violation what can not understand. deleting my image released under cc-by-sa is a responsibility that you have to take in a broader context that is not only the presence in Commons, jeopardizing the use of the image even in those states where legislation is more tolerant. Let me prove to the state where I live if you are or not a criminal violating the laws, you and anyone else remove immaginii because "I do not know then I remove for security", with respect, I do not think is qualified enough to be able to determine.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until the Italian legislation becomes more clear, or if we get specific instructions on how to handle Italian-specific FOP (COM:FOP#Italy), we need to err on the side of caution and delete them per the precautionary principle. Josve05a (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legge italiana su diritto d'autore

http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm

Freedom of Panorama issues

User:G.dallorto/Freedom of Panorama issues (debate on the Village pump, in English)

In Italian

File:BingHomepage2012.tiff

File:BingHomepage2012.tiff 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 ∙ +/−

— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Stockholm Public Library, interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

@ArildV: Josve05a (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bertil Norman.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

@V-wolf: Josve05a (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Carlia longipes.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Your bot

Stor du til? I uploaded a file yesterday I took from my plane, on the runway. (File:KSNA traffic at 7am photo D Ramey Logan.jpg) Perhaps you can tell me why it was noted as potential for copyright violation? https://vimeo.com/119660403 go ahead and watch me take the photo if you like: I removed the file from the list, it is getting old fighting to donate photos to commons. Your bot might be a bit overzealous, but that is not a good reasonfor a DR nomination or review, what's the deal, tusen takk ...... --WPPilot (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WPPilot: Sorry, I personally do not have a bot on Commons. I have however requested a bot lisr all images uploaded in a subcat of Category:NoUploads on User:Josve05a/Possible DRs for potential review by me later. Josve05a (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ahh ok, I have had issues with user attacks over my photos. I mistook the bot for a nefarious act, forgive me. --WPPilot (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casa del Fascio reprise

Hi, I don't understand why you have request the deleting of only Casa del Fascio in Minerbio, you can find the same problems in all Category:Casa del Fascio. Certainly I'm not going to ask for delete this, but, for consistency, you should do it yourself. Since you are sure of your choice, or all or nothing. Yours sincerely, --Threecharlie (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Threecharlie: I only addressed an issues that I notice, but that doesn't mean that I have to try to hunt down every single instance of a similar issue, since that would take forever and prevent me from doing any other wiki-work. I would like to remind you that we are all volonteers and nobody has to do anything. If you find something, report it, don't report it, your choise. But don't complain to anybody for doing something but not something else. Josve05a (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion. I'm sorry, but to say "we are all volunteers" doesn't solve the problem. In it.wiki, where admin for a few years, I'm usually to take responsibility for my choices and I do not shelter behind a Regulation citing it as a slogan. Because you have determined that two of my photos I released under the cc-by-sa were potentially harmful for the project I think you should take the responsibility to report any multimedia content according to your interpretation violates the Italian law or stopped your patrol activity. I still do not understand why in the Commons there is a UP or even just a RfC where we take responsibility to notify users that harm the project.--Threecharlie (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Threecharlie: Commons is also full of copyvios (copyright violations, such as stolen from Google Images). If I tag one of them as that, {{Copyvio}}, do I need to hunt down every single copyvio on Commons? Same logic applies here. Just becasue I find and tag one image, doesn't mean I'm forced to do it to another, or every single other one that applies. Josve05a (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'idea' that a person must look at every single one of the thousands of images in subcategories of Category:20th-century_architecture_in_Italy, and check every single one, before they can DR a single one as being a FOP violation is laughable. Users are responsible for actions that they choose to take, not actions that they DO NOT take for whatever reason, and this is fact a basic part of how Wikimedia projects work (and as an admin, I would think you would know this). You, as an itwiki admin, are not personally responsible for every 'possible' admin action that 'should' be taken on that wiki, but instead for the actions that you actually TAKE. If someone posts copyvio text to an article, and you don't personally delete it (because you never saw it) that does not mean you are 'liable' for that copyright violation. Josve is not responsible for the copyright status of thousands of files simply because he noticed that you uploaded some images that apparently violate Commons policy... the responsibility is instead yours, for having done so, and his for those specific DRs. Nothing else. To be honest, this 'complaint' to him comes across as an 'odd' type of whining about a deletion. Revent (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hey. Don't feel bad about the RFA. Just take your time to understand and action on the points raised, and you'll be ready before you know it. You need to focus more on working with people and gaining trust. Also, I too think FDMS4's comment at the bottom is something you should consider. Good luck! Reh man 14:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. 1989 15:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Semantic Web.svg

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mössebergs kyrka, exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

@Nasko: Josve05a (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kul! Min första värdefulla bild. Det är delvis din förtjänst att jag laddat upp bilder på kyrkor på Commons. När jag såg hur du skapade artikeln Mössebergskyrka(n) tänkte jag: Men vad ska detta vara bra för? Inte ska väl varenda kyrka i Sverige ha egen artikel på Wikipedia!?! När artikeln väl fanns förbättrade jag den och knäppte en bild på kyrkan och laddade upp. Sedan kom jag på att det nog inte var en så dålig idé, så jag betade av närmare 100 kyrkor i Skaraborg. Det är kul att fotografera och kyrkorna är lätta att hitta. Kul att bilden blev utsedd som värdefull. Synd att den inte bilden inte blev perfekt. Jag knäppte bilden när jag hade vägarna förbi och kunde valt ett bättre tillfälle, men helt kass är den inte:) Nasko (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nasko: Jag kom faktiskt inte ihåg att jag skapade den. Wow, jag måste ha varigt...12 år. Jag hade inte så mycket koll på om relevans och dyl. Du tar jättefina bilder måste jag säga. Keep up the good work! Josve05a (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

768pdh07

Message received. Thanks for your comments and observations. The images were taken from free image source sites on the internet with exception of the one of Mr. Wiegand, who is a "public figure" holding a public office. It has been my understanding images of public office holders are not subject to copyright protection (at least in the US). This aside, I will be sure to cite the location of each free source image cite in the future. Unfortunately, I did not record this information for the other images. (Lesson learned!)

None of the images removed were critical to understanding the nature and substance of the information presented. Moreover, I have no issues regarding the images that were removed, in fact, it improves the page.

Respectfully submitted, PDH.

Timestamp added much later due to archival purposes. 03:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Multiple dairy cartons (226051).jpg

File:Skånemejeriers Pepparkaksfil (239912).jpg

File:Skånemejeriers Pepparkaksfil.jpg

Nomination for deletion - Hassan's Optician Co.

Hello Josve05a, I'm confused on why my images are being nominated because they are images from my personal research which I've scanned and copied then uploaded to flickr and these are also Images which can be found on public domains which are accessible for the public to use freely. But nevertheless could you help me out on how I can publish the images onto common so that I may use them on my article? Thanks Krystel Espiritu (talk)

@Krystel Espiritu: Just becase image can be freely found and accesible by the public does not mean that the are free of copyright. All images uploaded to Commons must be freely licensed, so to allow modifications, and redistributions, even commercially. For images which you have not personally taken, you can not release these copyrights. Therefore, without the real author (photographer/creator)'s permission (see COM:OTRS) they can not be stored on Wikimedia Commons and not be used on Wikipedia. Yours truly. Josve05a (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: I can get permission to use the logo from the company would that be sufficient or could I simply use a logo which contains only the text? Also regarding the File:Dr. Hassan Saadat.jpg - since this image is over 70 years old and File:1991 - HOC.jpg could I licensed them using PD-Old or PD-Scan? The image with the family is personally taken by me with their consent do I still need to license that as well? Thank you, Krystel Espiritu (talk)

@Krystel Espiritu: Intresting. Let's see. Yes, the logo is too simple to be copyrighted, my mistake. As for the others, let's see:

File:1991 - HOC.jpg - This file was taken less than 70 years ago, therefore not applicable for {{PD-old}} (or scan = same thing). Only the photographer can realease this one. I fyou knw the photographer please read COM:OTRS.
File:Family Picture.jpg - Same thing with this one.
File:Dr. Hassan Saadat.jpg - This one is more intresting. For the usage of {{PD-old}} to be used to photographer has had to been dead for at least 70 years, or if unknown it depends on the country, if taken before 1923 = ok, after that it gets a bit trickier. Josve05a (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: So does this mean that the logo deletion nomination is revoked? also on File:Dr. Hassan Saadat.jpg in Commons:Copyright rules by territory it states "photos, films and two dimensional artistic works are protected for 50 years starting from the end of the publication year, after which they are in public domain." could I still save that image using the tag mentioned? Again File:Family Picture.jpg is my own photo and do I really still need to go through those channels? Thank you, Krystel Espiritu (talk)

@Krystel Espiritu: A DR can't be 'revoked' once started, since it's a community process, but Josve did note on the DR page that the particular image (the logo) is actually fine as a non-copyrightable logo... the notice will stay on the file page until the comment period closes, but that particular one will undoubtedly not be deleted. Haven't looked at the others yet. Revent (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: Well thank you for clearing that up for me, any help from anybody right now is much appreciated. There are two images I really want not to be deleted those areFile:Dr. Hassan Saadat.jpg is it possible to use either PD-OLD Or PD-SCAN tag on it & File:Family Picture.jpg is a picture I took on my camera so I think I can use it on my article? Thanks again Krystel Espiritu (talk)

@Krystel Espiritu: For the first, the provenance needs to be more clear to establish that the scanned work was PD. If that is the case, then a scan of it is fine, but you should not claim it is 'own work', as the mere 'mechanical act' of scanning an image does not create a new copyright. Attribute it to the original source. For the second, if you were indeed the photographer then you own the copyright, and have every right to license it. You should clarify that at the DR. Revent (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: I've changed the Source and the Author for File:Dr. Hassan Saadat.jpg and Added the tag PD-SCAN, is that enough for the file not to be deleted? Krystel Espiritu (talk)

@Krystel Espiritu: Indeed, though I changed the 'default' claim made by PD-scan to the 'specific' Kuwaiti one (PD-scan assumes it's under a 70 year term, which would have not yet expired, but the Kuwaiti term is shorter). Please note the fix at the DR. Revent (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: & @Josve05a: Thank you very to you both, I really appreciate all the help. Sincerely, Krystel Espiritu (talk)

OTRS permissions queues

Hello Josve05a. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kajaani castle bilder

Hallå,

Jag såg att mina bilder från Kajaani castle (Kajana slott) från juli 2013 är med på din sida "Sweden". Jag undrar bara varför, eftersom slottet ligger ju i Finland och inte i Sverige. Är det eftersom då det byggdes var Finland en del av Sverige? JIP (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detta är för att bilden (troligen) ligger i en av underkategorierna (eller underkategorierna av underkategorierna av underkategorierna) av Category:Sweden. Josve05a (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Nour El Refai.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Info

Hi, just an info. I have seen my image in your list and I'm asking if you find a problem with copyright or something similar. Thank you. --Codas (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:SJ ABs logo (black).svg

File:SJ AB's logo (black).jpg

And also:

Locations

Hi Jonatan - a small request, when uploading photos from Flickr, please make sure any location information is also included, as I've done e.g. here. Locations are very important, as they allow for things like scientific verification, and subspecies identification. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the images history I can see that I used Flickr2Commons to upload the image, and that leaves two possibilities. Either I disabled all descriptions in this mass-upload for some reason or the tool failed to load it. Josve05a (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is there any easy way of checking if other files in the same batch upload need descriptions adding? - MPF (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know if. It is (perhaps) possible to crossref all my uploads on a specific date in the category "Files without machine readable-descriptions" (not the right name) using a tool such as CatScan.. Josve05a (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Milk cartons

Affected:

File:Multiple dairy cartons (226051).jpg

And also:

-- Gazebo (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massmallning av mina bilder

1. har du aldrig hört talas om att man kan ta bilder med stativ och självutlösare?
2. har du aldrig hört talas om licensen PD-Sweden-photo ("Fotografiska bilder", såsom pressens bilder)?
3. har du aldrig hört talas om att man kan ärva bildrättigheter?

--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Du har relevanta argument, Holger, men så vitt jag kan se så menade Josve väl i det här fallet. Det var också lite otydlig beskrivning i vissa. Det är alltid bra att du anger vem som faktiskt tagit bilden.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jag förstår inte. Vad menade Josve "väl i det här fallet"? --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Att se till att bilderna du laddade upp använde rätt licens och hade rätt metainfo. Jag kan bara beklaga att det blev så personligt, Holger.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, jag förstår. Jag skall bättra mig angående rätt licens och rätt metainfo. En del bilder är uppladdade för mycket länge sedan och då blev det inte alltid "heltäckande" bildbeskrivningar. Men detta med "fotografiska bilder/verk" har jag verkligen ingen större lust att tugga om igen. Är den punkten inte klarlagd sedan "Beatlesbild- diskussionen"?--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Conquérant.jpg

Hi, I saw deletion of this file of mines (by the way don't remember which it was), could you please explain me what happens ? Thanks and regards. --Eric Walter (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Disattached crosswalk button in Stockholm, Sweden.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 22:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Dear Josve05a, even after some searching through commons I do not know what the abbreviation in "Possible DRs" stands for. I came across it as some of my photos where categorised there.--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Let me refine my question, after looking at your talk page archive there is lots of "Deletion Requests". What are your bot criteria to collect photos on these subpages?--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KlausFoehl: It list photos that is listed in a subcategory of Category:NoUploads, which lists artists who are not in PD, ans objects such as buildings not in FoP. There are a lot od false possitives, but it is a great way to catch 'em. Josve05a (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: Well, it is funny to see the tag for File:Flaine panoramic01 2015-02-17.jpg but then Flaine being a Ski resort the eventual parent is Category:Sports venues in France...so it is trawl and sift. Thanks.--KlausFoehl (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this is not exactly the first time (both onwiki and on IRC) someone gets confused or even upset about these page inclusions you should probably consider generating your list elsewhere (locally or on toollabs) or at least renaming its page to sound less alarming. FDMS 4 17:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FDMS4: An explanatory note on User:Josve05a/Possible_DRs would already help. Other users also use bots for image collections, and their lists have speaking names.--KlausFoehl (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests/File:Peckhammer TV Screenshot.jpg

I am the copyright holder of Peckhammer TV Screenshot.jpg. I own the copyright to everything that was taped, filmed, created, photographed, written and/or performed by me during the production of Peckhammer TV (the program). This includes the recording of my voice, conversations and sounds, graphics created for the web series or the promotion of the web series, any performances of any musical composition(s), during and in connection with my appearances and I am the exclusive owner of the results and proceeds of such taping, filming, photography, creation of graphics, writings, performances and recordings with the right, throughout the world, and unlimited number of times in perpetuity, to the copyright, to use and to license to others to use, in any manner, all or any portion thereof or of a reproduction thereof in connection with the Program or otherwise.Peckhammer (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests/Files in Category:Harpa (concert hall)

Dear Josve05a, I´d uploaded Harpa Feb 2014 1.JPG, unfortunately I didn´t know about this problem, I first read afterwards about it...So if it will be deleted would be sad, but what else could we do? I´d also uploaded 2 more, should they not also be deleted? --Schnuffel2002 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

en.wiki

Hah, I didn't even know you were an en.wiki discussions dragon, congrats for the thankless work. I guess Commons doesn't deserve to have you all for itself. ;-) --Nemo 06:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spend most of my time on enwp actullay, might not edit much but still :) Josve05a (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:20150516 ESC 2015 Måns Zelmerlöw 9958 (cropped).jpg

File:20150516 ESC 2015 Måns Zelmerlöw 9989 (cropped).jpg

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pelusios williamsi.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lasiopezus longimanus, portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Chrysochroa baudoni, mounted specimen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Catoptropteryx aurita, side view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Poecilopsyra octoseriata, side view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ben Bass.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Scott Ullger.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Speiredonia mutabilis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Zeuneria melanopeza, mounted specimen, 2 males, and female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Batodromeus subulo, female, side view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Possible DR"

Hi there. I've seen several of the files I've uploaded on a page named "Possible DR" linked to your user page. I'd like to know what does that mean. Dornicke (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dornicke: I have requested a bot list all images uploaded in a subcat of Category:NoUploads on User:Josve05a/Possible DRs for potential review by me later. The abbrivation DRs stands for Deletion Requests. So it is to find possible violations. Josve05a (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter

Hi Josve05a, could you please repair the files in the mentioned category? They all appeared there because of your replacements with VisualFileChange.js. Thanks, --Arnd (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aschroet:

Fixed Josve05a (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dwarf Beaked Snake (Dipsina multimaculata) (7027018261).jpg

File:Dwarf Beaked Snake (Dipsina multimaculata) (6880943452).jpg

File:Wall's Bronzeback (Dendrelaphis cyanochloris) (Detail of the dorsal scales) (8687722041).jpg

File:Wall's Bronzeback (Dendrelaphis cyanochloris) (Detail of the dorsal scales) (8687722041).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wall's Bronzeback (Dendrelaphis cyanochloris) (Detail of the dorsal scales) (8687722041).jpg 95.176.64.181 19:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wall's Bronzeback (Dendrelaphis cyanochloris) (8688826734).jpg

File:Wall's Bronzeback (Dendrelaphis cyanochloris) (8688826296).jpg

File:Wall's Bronzeback (Dendrelaphis cyanochloris) (8688826102).jpg

File:Wall's Bronzeback (Dendrelaphis cyanochloris) (8687682815).jpg

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Erynnis propertius, dorsal side.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files uploaded by Josve05a (delete)

Affected:

File:"Rosen- und Lichterfest" Palmengarten Frankfurt (14202837979).jpg

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red caterogization

Hello. Please do not move files from existing categories to non existing ones. Mithril (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, most of the times when doing that I try to create the red category right away, but sometimes it takes a day or two. Will do it before moving in the future. Josve05a (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request Undeletion of Catalyst Bullwhip File

Hi there,

I recently requested that the file that was removed by undeleted, as it is not in violation of Noreast Whips. I am Steve Huntress, owner of Noreast Whips. The picture of the Catalyst Bullwhip was uploaded by me. Please let me know if I need to do anything more. Thanks for your help.

Steve Huntress, noreastwhips@gmail.com Pilgrim70 (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilgrim70:

If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT).

→

Josve05a (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Lauchpad List For Files To Be Thrown On The Moon

This sample illustrates referenced information of barcode quality showing what you see and what the barcode scanner sees.
Sampe of recycling and reuseable bottles, shown in the manufacturers article, only.

So, I hope You see the samples are relevant and taken to understand expressions in the articles, only. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 12:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bot (not mine) only collects all images uploaded to a subcat of Category:NoUploads. When I've gone through the long lists of possible violation (small percentage left) I willask for the lists to be deleted. Nothing against your images, the bot collected the images automaticly. Josve05a (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank You. I did not recognize the collection was done by a bot. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 23:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	In recognition of your hard work on categorization. Fæ (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fæ for this amazing (read fabulous) barnstar. I try to categorize things as much as I can, however I am terribly backlogged, and can't stop uploading images....bad circle. Josve05a (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Josve05a/Archive 4

Image Deletion File:Dominicburns002.PNG

Please help defend the file

A cup of tea for you!

Untitled

Unblock request

File:John Falcone Memorial.JPG

About Cenith Air Logo

Bye

RE: File:Qatar Airways Airbus A350-941 A7-ALA 15.Jan.2015 First commercial service Doha-Frankfurt (16284531971).jpg

Assistance

Copyright status: File:Björn Nilsson (CEO of SJ Norrlandståg AB).jpg

If you want to continue...

Deletion requests of my images considered FOP

Legge italiana su diritto d'autore

Freedom of Panorama issues

In Italian

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Your bot

Casa del Fascio reprise

RFA

Valued Image Promotion

768pdh07

Nomination for deletion - Hassan's Optician Co.

OTRS permissions queues

Kajaani castle bilder

Valued Image Promotion

Info

Locations

Notification about possible deletion

Massmallning av mina bilder

Deletion of File:Conquérant.jpg

Quality Image Promotion

Untitled

Deletion requests/File:Peckhammer TV Screenshot.jpg

Deletion requests/Files in Category:Harpa (concert hall)

en.wiki

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Valued Image Promotion

Bots

"Possible DR"

Valued Image Promotion

Notification about possible deletion

Red caterogization

Request Undeletion of Catalyst Bullwhip File

Your Lauchpad List For Files To Be Thrown On The Moon

A barnstar for you!

Navigation menu

Search