User talk:JuTa/Archive 28

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.

Fotos von Gampe

Hallo JuTa, du hast aber schon gesehen, dass er die Lizenz schon hatte, nur die geschwungenen Klammern vergaß, also ein kurzer Hinweis (wenn auch in englisch hätte insgesamt weniger Aufwand bedeutet. --gruß K@rl (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ja hab ich gesehen, aber im EXIF steht "Fotograf Jaro Zastoupil " und "Urheberrechte CC-BY-SA 3.0 " und auf der Dateibeschreibungsseite steht/stand: "Urheber gampe" und Lizenz cc-by-sa-4.0. Da passt(e) also einiges nicht zusammen. --Ju Ta 14:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, da gebe ich dir recht, du kannst nicht wissen, dass es ein und der selbe ist. Ich kenne ihn aber persönlich da er auch an deutschsprachigen Fototouren teilnahm. Differenzen in Nickname zum exif aber auch zum Hochlader sind mir schon oft vorgekommen. Siehe z.Bsp. File:Klosterkirche_der_Kreuzschwestern_2.jpg, bei mir ist ja wurscht :-) --K@rl (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Old_traffic_guide_signs_in_Japan,Sawara_town,Japan.jpg

Hello. Could you tell me the deleted concrete evidence to "Old_traffic_guide_signs_in_Japan,Sawara_town,Japan.jpg ".--Katorisi (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there was no license temaplate use on the description page - compare Commons:Licensing. regards. --Ju Ta 07:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Żubrówka / CEDC - restoring deleted files

Hello

Since all needed permissions has been sent by authorized person from company - I'd like to ask for undeleting following files:

File:Polmos Białystok - Żubrówka.jpg File:ZBG-700 B.jpg File:ZUBROWKA BIALA 700ml.jpg File:ZUBROWKA ZLOTA 500ml.jpg File:Żubrówka Export.png

E-mails to permissions-commons are not working - and Ticket#2015060110013258 is dead for two weeks now.

Sincerly --Navias (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, those images has been uploaded without an license in January an deleted as copyight violations the same day. I a little wonder why ou asking now and asking me (I didn't deleted them). But anyhow: Please ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for your case. If everything checks out OK they will undelete the images for you. regards. --Ju Ta 07:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - after some coffe it seems weird for me as well :).

Sincerly --Navias (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Years

Please restore:

1959, 1958 and 1956 Thanks! Evrik (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Done --Ju Ta 18:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and Kate Bush. Thanks! Evrik (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Done --Ju Ta 18:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

2.0 generic

Both of he files I uploaded, and you tagged for deletion, are from Flickr and have 2.0 generic licences, and should not be deleted. All necessary information is included with the files. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the case has been fixed by another user. But next time please use the correct license template, which woul be {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} in this case. When copying from flickr please add a {{Flickrreview}} as well. regards. --Ju Ta 17:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:MussklprozzImHochwasser.jpg

Moin,

ich besitze die vollständigen Nutzungsrechte, hab die Freigabe an Permissions-de geschickt, und den entsprechenden Baustein in die Dateibeschreibung gesetzt. Die Ticketnummer bei Permission ist 2015072210005547. Warum diese Einfügung von Dir?

Gruß aus Freiberg am Neckar, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Mussklprozz, weil dort keine Lizenz-Vorlage verwendet wird. Da das Bild von Deiner Tochter stammt sollte es nicht schwierig sein herauszufinden unter welcher freien Lizenz sie das Bild veröffentlichen möchte. Eine lange Liste möglicher Lzenzen findet Ihr unter Commons:Copyright tags. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} ist eine empfohlene. Füge die von Deiner Tochter gewünschte Lizenz-Vorlage ein und das Problem wäre gelöst. Gruß --Ju Ta 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ich dachte, das wird von Permissions eingefügt, wenn die das Ticket bearbeitet haben. In der E-Mail steht ja die gewünschte Lizenz. Aber gut, ich hab das Tag jetzt eingefügt. Gruß & Dank, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Signatura - Ľudovít Csordák.jpg.

Zapoměj jsem tam vložit licenci, ale už jsem to opravil. Každému je jasné, že jde o podpis malíře, který je již více jak 70 let mrtví a jeho dílo je volné. Hezký den --Martin wolf (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, inbetween you added a license to the image, which is good. I now fixed the license template - see here. regards. --Ju Ta 18:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bohužel nemluvím německy ani anglicky . Použil jsem překladač Google. S pozdravem --Martin wolf (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately I do not speak German or English. I used a translator Google.

Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in Weimar: Markt

Guten Abend JuTa! Sieh doch mal bitte auf der Seite: Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in Weimar: Markt; nach. Ich hatte die Kategorien zum Thema schon mal zu Bearbeiten begonnen und habe dann die "Baustelle" relativ ungesichert verlassen. Du findest dort die Antwort auf Deine Frage nach dem Kategorie-Doppel. Ähnlich würde es sich mit der Kategorie: Kulturdenkmale in Weimar: Platz der Demokratie; verhalten. --Silvio Ludwig (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, tut mir leid, aber ich verstehe nicht was Du hier von mir willst bzw. was ich damit zu tun habe. Gruß --Ju Ta 06:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Category talk:Funeral of Kalākaua

Could restore the info here and leave it on my talk page? I don't care that it was deleted I just need the information on it. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi KAVEBEAR, the content was before you emmptied it:

Thomas Rooke [1]
Kekuanaoa [2]
Kekauonohi [3]
Kaapakea [4]
William Pitt Leleiohoku [5]
Jona Piikoi [6]
Robert C. Wylie [7]

regards. --Ju Ta 06:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk page(s)

Please be more careful when deleting pages in user space, particularly those recently renamed. For example you deleted User talk:23prootie~commonswiki that, from the user page history was moved on April 15th of this year. Regards. Allen4names (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It was a broken redirect before an after the move. --Ju Ta 07:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permission

Dear JuTa! Due to OTRS ticket:2015070410005563 I want you to restore following deleted files please:

I will adjust these file pages according to the ticket in time.

Thank you very much indeed,
(OTRS) Doc Taxon (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Doc Taxon, die Bilder sind wieder da. Ich hab den "no permission" tag auf heute gesetzt, also wenn möglich zügig gegen oTRS Vorlage tauschen. Gruß --Ju Ta 18:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

oh, Du sprichst deutsch? Interessant, Doc Taxon (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ist alles erledigt Doc Taxon (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Te Gerkens Selbstporträt 1988 55.jpg

Ich verstehe nicht warum das Foto gelöscht wurde, ich habe das Foto gemacht in Gegenwart und unter der ausdrücklichen Erlaubnis der Witwe des Künstlers, somit gehört das Foto mir und somit gehören die Rechte auch mir. Ich habe angegeben, dass das Foto mein Eigentum ist, und verstehe daher den Löschvorgang nicht und möchte, dass er rückgängig gemacht wird. Ein Eintrag sollte mindestes ein Slebstporträt zeigen dürfen. Das Bild ist nicht öffentlich zugägngig - nur bei der Witwe zu Hause! Ich kann das Foto also nur im Beisein der Witwe und unter ihrer ausdrücklicher Erlaubnis gemacht haben, so wie der ganze Artikel auf Wunsch der Witwe und unter ihrer Aufsicht entstanden ist. (Dr.Unsinn)

Hallo, die Witwe müsste per mail per mail an das commons supportteam bestätigen, dass sie gewillt ist die Fotos der Gemälde ihres Mannes unter {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} zu veröffentlichen - siehe Commons:OTRS bzw. Commons:OTRS/de. Das kann auch jetzt noch geschehen. Wenn alles OK ist werden die Bilder wiederhergestellt. Hab' allerdings Geduld, das kann auch einige Wochen dauern. Gruß --Ju Ta 14:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Melaleuca mess!

Hello JuTa,

Thank you for reverting my edit to Category:Melaleuca stenostachya. I was trying to clean up the Melaleuca category. Melaleuca stenostachya should be under S, not M but I can't fix it. I want to add lots of new Melaleuca images soon. If you can help by cleaning up the Melaleuca category it would be wunderbar!!!

Gderrin (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, such a sort-fix is working like this. regards. --Ju Ta 14:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much JuTa.

Gderrin (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

File:141110 Motive Vega 43831 R.jpg

Hi, JuTa, I'm very new to Wikimedia and do not know how to contact people or how to post replies. I hope you get this message. You left a message for me about the OTRS pending image that I uploaded yesterday. I understand the situation - I am currently waiting for the copyright holder to return the official email to OTRS, as their legal department is reviewing the terms of the license. I had to upload the image first, though, in order to obtain the URL for the permission email. So I'm not sure what's wrong at this point. Was this just a general message that gets sent out to everyone who uploads stuff while waiting for permission or is there something else I didn't do? I'm really struggling to understand the process here. Any assistance would be very much appreciated.Bczogalla (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

Hi Bczogalla, every image on commons needs a free license - see Commons:Licensing. Images without should an will be deleted latest one week after upload. You image is missing a license template ({{OTRS pending}} isn't a license). So: as soon ou know the license of the copyighters choice please add it to the image description page. A long list o possible template ou find at Commons:Copyright tags. regards. --Ju Ta 00:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi JuTa, I had added the proper license template. The photo is from an official press kit (I included all the links and sources) and it is by that definition already in the public domain and does not require a license. I have followed all the instructions to the letter and you deleted it anyway. Please explain to me why this happened. I want to upload this photo and I have all the proper licensing information and I posted it according to the guidelines. Please advise.Bczogalla (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

Hi, {{Publicity still}} isnt a license template. A long list of license templates you find at Commons:Copyright tags. regards. --Ju Ta 20:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, This is exactly my point - the image is in the Public Domain and thus DOES NOT require a license. I have put this information into the file description as the process requested. So PLEASE HELP ME!! I don't know what else to do! How do I upload a publicity still if the instructions are wrong? Are there correct instructions for uploading a publicity still? Where are they? This is what I need to know. Can you please help me? ThanksBczogalla (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

Hi, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Publicity_still for the usage of that teplate an which license templates ae used. But thats mainly old images pre 1978 o similar. Your image in ceated 2014 and likely copyrighted, I'm sorry. --Ju Ta 05:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to keep bothering you. According to the Publicity Still explanation a Publicity Still by its very definition is already in the public domain. Here is what the producers of the still emailed me: "I looked through the Wikipedia templates and felt this applied to our scenario: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Publicity_still I don't believe we would need to provide written approval under these terms." So this is what I'm working with. I looked at the links above that you mentioned, and I still don't know which license to use! The closest I can find is the one that says "PD reason" and then I guess I put "Publicity Still" instead of "reason". Please help me out. If you're not the right person to ask for help, could you please tell me who I should ask? Thank you for your time and kindness in responding. Bczogalla (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

Hi, to me it looks like {{Publicity still}} was copied from english wikipedia by a single user without prior discussion or consense. It rearly used here and on en: Every other image using it has a (hopefully) valid copyright tag as well. But if you like you could start a wider discussion about it i.e. on Commons:Village pump/Copyright to clarify if this should be a vali copyright tag or not. Currently it is not one. And I would find it hard to believe that any movie or publicity still should be in public domain just because its a publicity still. --Ju Ta 19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have no desire to redefine legal terms on Wikimedia or elsewhere. I am not a lawyer. All I want to do is upload a photo and nobody seems to know what I should do. It is VERY frustrating. At this point I will re-upload the photo with the new tag and hope for the best. I do not understand legal discussions. I just want someone to tell me how to deal with this issue. Thanks for your response. Bczogalla (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

When the image is copyighted by somebody else ou simply cant or shouldnt upload it. What you can do is: ask the copyright holder if he likes to publish the image under a free license of his choice. if he agrees he has to send an email to the commons support team to confirm that - see Commons:OTRS. regards. --Ju Ta 06:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, As I had mentioned above I have ALREADY contacted the copyright owner. This is what they said (also quoted already above): "I looked through the Wikipedia templates and felt this applied to our scenario: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Publicity_still I don't believe we would need to provide written approval under these terms." So that's their official response, they want to use it as a Publicity Still, this was THEIR answer. I still don't know what I should do about this! Please advise. Bczogalla (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

Sorry, I cannot help you. Please ask i.e. on Commons:Village pump/Copyright to a wider audiance. regards. --Ju Ta 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of Category:Paranumismatica

Why did you delete this valid category? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it was empty and uncategoized. regards. --Ju Ta 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It was not empty. It was only empty at the time of deletion because you had emptied it seconds before. That is not an "empty category" for the purposes of deletion.

I cannot now see how it was categorized at the time, but as it did have a clear description in place, I doubt that it is true either that it was uncategorized either.

This is a valid and notable (WP:Notable) category. It should be restored. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, its back. I couldn't find a sense in it but you might know better. Please find and add some sensefull categories to it. regards. --Ju Ta 17:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It may yet be merged into Category:Exonumia or Category:Paranumismatics, but the naming is another argument for someone else. It is a real topic though. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Georg Obst

see this discussion, please. --Hemeier (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

I gave an answer there. --Ju Ta 19:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Licenses of photo

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ION_Orchard.jpg#.7B.7Bint:license-header.7D.7D

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_ion_orchard_road_singapore_2012.jpg

I added licence for any photo. Check, please. АндрейХьюстон (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

thx. --Ju Ta 07:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Gualtiero Passani picture - OTRS -

good morning, you 've taken notice of cancellation , I would like to know how can I speed up the validation OTRS . by the time I sent a second time the email request perr certified OTRS . thank you very much Lorenzo Pacini ( user LORENZOpacini)

Hi, such a OTRS confirmation could take weeks sometimes more because there is a lack of volounteers on OTRS. You just "tiggered" OTRS some days ago, so please be patient. If it takes too long, please ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for your case(s). regads. --Ju Ta 18:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

pictures licence

Hello

I sent mail to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons, thank you

Hi, on all your uploads a license template is completely missing - see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags. If the copyright holder (not you) sent an email to the commons support team, you should enter the license template of the copyright holders choice, otherwise the images will get deleted after about one week. Please add the template {{OTRS pending}} when you add the license, best by typing {{subst:OP}} to the permision field. regards. --Ju Ta 18:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo Pierre saint Paul André Morain 1999

Monsieur, vous vous êtes permis de supprimer une photo alors qu'une demande d'autorisation a été faite depuis le 28 mai 2015. Vous auriez pu constater que depuis j'ai fait le nécessaire, aussi bien auprès de contributeurs qui me posaient la question qu'auprès d'OTRS... Merci de rétablir cette photo, je ne suis pas responsable de vos disfonctionnement--Philippe HENRION (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are allready in contact with another amin at User_talk:Jarekt#Pierre_Saint-Paul.2C_photo_Andr.C3.A9_Morain_1999. As he has access to the OTRS mails (which I dont have) I leave it to him to check and possibly restore the image. regards. --Ju Ta 18:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour, je ne comprends pas votre message: je ne peux pas le traduire. Il y a deux autorisations OTRS pour cette image: une du mois de mai et l'autre du mois de juillet, le ticket est #2015052810008948." Il est plus facile de détruire que de construire". Salutations--Philippe HENRION (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

google tanslate de mon dernier message: Salut, je vois que vous êtes deja en contact avec un autre amin au User_talk:Jarekt#Pierre_Saint-Paul.2C_photo_Andr.C3.A9_Morain_1999. Comme il a accès aux mails OTRS (qui je ne pas avoir) Je lui laisse le soin de vérifier et éventuellement restaurer l'image. Cordialement. --Ju Ta 07:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hi, please delete this pages - [8], [9]--6AND5 (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Next time please use {{Speedy}}. regards. --Ju Ta 18:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.--6AND5 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Das_Wort_6._Heft_1933_Neu-Salem-Verlag.pdf

J'ai fournies sur le service d'aide de wikimédia commons quelques explications au sujet de ce fichier que je recopie ici puisque j'ai trouvé votre page de discussion :

L'utilisateur JuTa signale que le fichier risque d'être supprimer.

Il s'agit d'un document qui a été publié il y a plus de 70 ans par une maison d'édition Neu-Salem-Verlag interdite par la Gestapo en 1937.

Je l'ai trouvé sur le site web de Lothar Bross qui propose en accès libre des "Neu-Salems-Schriften" (http://www.lothar-bross.de/Neu-Salems-Schriften/inhaltsverzeichnis.htm). Là, sous le bandeau "Das Wort 1933", il y a le "Heft 6" en question : http://www.lothar-bross.de/Neu-Salems-Schriften/Das%20Wort%201933/Das%20Wort%20Heft%2006-1933.pdf

Alors quel est le droit de Lothar Bross sur ces documents ? Je ne vois aucun CopyRight affiché sur cette (sa) page web.

Quel sont le droit sur ces documents de la Lorber Gesellschaf eV, fondée en 1949, je n'en vois aucun juridiquement parlant.

Ce fichier est important car y figure plusieurs passages d'allégeance à Adolf Hitler par le Lorber-Bewegung qui sont signalés ou cités tant dans l'article-wikipeida-allemand "Lorberbewegung" que dans le livre "Jakob Lorber. Eine kritische Durchsicht", un livre critique. Ceci n'exclue bien entendu pas de considérer et vérifier sous quelle license le document peut être admis dans wikimedia commons.

Je dois avouer que question licenses, je n'y connais pas grand chose et toute aide serait la bienvenue

--Avoye (d) 10:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Suite ...

J'ai cherché à me renseigner et j'ai regardé ce qui est dit au sujet d'une image datant de 1886 émanant du "Neutheosophischer Verlag".

Dans l'article Wikipedia-allemand Lorberbewegung on lit : Nach Johannes Busch übernahm Landbeck 1879 den Verlag der Lorberwerke, welche er erst unter "Neu Theosophischer Verlag, Johannes Busch Nachfolger", und nach 1907 unter "Neu-Salems-Verlag" druckte und verteilte. Die Namensänderung wurde vorgenommen, um nicht mit der Theosophischen Gesellschaft verwechselt zu werden.

Traduction approximative : Après Johannes Busch [le 1er éditeur de Lorber], Landbeck a repris l'édition des oeuvres de Lorber qu'il imprimait et distribuait/diffusait tout d'abord sous [le nom de] "Neu Theosophischer Verlag, Johannes Busch Nachfolger" [Johannes Busch Nachfolger = successeur de Johannes Busch], et après 1907 sous "Neu-Salem-Verlag". Le changement de nom a été fait afin de ne pas être confondu avec la Société Théosophique.

Donc l'image en question de 1886 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vaterbriefe3.jpg provient bien de la même maison d'édition (celle de Christoph Friedrich Landbeck) que le fichier "Das Wort 6. Heft 1933" que j'ai chargé. Si cette image de 1886 a pu bénéficier d'une license jugée valable, il devrait en être de même pour le fichier de 1933 que j'ai chargé ...

--Avoye (d) 12:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Quant à Lothar Bross, il n'est est pas l'auteur, il met ce document (et les autres en sa possession), volontairement semble-t-il, à la disposition du public.

--Avoye (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the problem is that there is just no 8valid) license template on the decription page. And I fear that there is no valid template existing. On the front page there are various authors listed like Gust. Lindemann, Harun Dzerunian, Jakob Lorber and more. Such works are copyrighted in Gemany until 70 years after the death of their authors. This means that if only one of the co-authors would have lifed past 1945 the newspaper is still under copyright. You could try to find out the life-dates of all the named authors and list them to the decription page, If all of them died before 1945 the license {{PD-old}} would be the correct one. PS: you need to enter a source as well. regards. --Ju Ta 18:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jakob Lorber est mort en 1864. Les trois qui ont signé l'allégeance à Hitler au nom de la Neu-Salems-Gesellschaft : Walter Lutz né en 1879 et décédé en 1965. Fritz Enke, il en a eu plusieurs, mais je n'ai pas trouvé le bon. Otto Zluhan né en 1890 et décédé en 1983. Harun Dzerunian, musicien, né 1883 en Turquie, décédé en 1969 à Karlsruhe est celui dont il y a une partition de musique au début du document.

J'ai trouvé un site où les originaux sont proposés en lecture, dont "Dans Wort" : https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=96DC68F4101B42E2&id=96DC68F4101B42E2%21105#id=96DC68F4101B42E2%21105&cid=96DC68F4101B42E2&group=0 Il est précisé dans "LIESMICH": "Danke an Gerd Gutemann, Gertrud Bommes, Heiner Bösch, Klaus Kardelke, Stanislav Kobella und Walther Gluhak, die Material und Scans für das Archiv zur Verfüung gestellt haben.

Il semble que l'ensemble du Lorber-Bewegung se soit décidé à rendre public une partie de leurs archives, ce qui n'était pas le cas auparavant (ils ne publient cependant pas les originaux de la main de Lorber, hormis 3 pages).

Cela enlève de l'intérêt de sauvegarder sur wikimedia le document que je voulais charger.

--Avoye (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletions

Why did you delete all the sub-categories of Category:Royal Birmingham Society of Artists permanent collection/Reports? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Because they were empty. regards. --Ju Ta 06:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Category:Royal Birmingham Society of Artists permanent collection/Reports/popular categories, for example, shows otherwise. These are part of a GLAM dashboard, kindly provided by Fæ. Please restore them, ASAP. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

They are/were a category. There were no pages or images sorted into them. There was some Text etc. on the category page itself, but nothing was sorted into that category. Maybe such pages would better fit into the commons namespace or similar. Should we talk to Fæ that he creates such pages not in category but in commons or maybe some users namespace? --Ju Ta 15:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Just spotting my name. I don't restrict the way Faebot does this, it's up to the users. I would rather create User or Commons space reports, but there are no rules established, for this reason it would be better to undelete and reach a consensus... or just ignore it as nobody is being harmed and nothing gets broken as far as I can tell. --Fæ (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi the reason I stumbled over these cats is Im currently working on Special:UncategorizedCategories an notices several of these pseudo-empty cats created by Fæbot. I realy think they should not be located withing the category namespace but in the commons namespace. Anyhow I'll restore the requested cats now , but would like to ask Andy Mabbett to move them over to the commons namespace and "fix" the Fæbot config. thx an regards. --Ju Ta 04:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Gale Brewer Photo.jpg

Hi, I'm wondering about the deletion of File:Gale Brewer Photo.jpg. could you send me a copy of description page? were there any recent changes? looks like it was a couple years old so I wonder why deletion took so long. (or what changed?) thanks! --Jeremyb (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The source was https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=321788601286432&set=pb.275051459293480.-2207520000.1371926747.&type=3&theater and facebook images are never compatible with commons because if s.o. uploads s.th. to facebook they get an exclusive right aon all of it. --Ju Ta 04:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Castrol logo.svg

File:Castrol logo.svg 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 ∙ +/−

106.68.109.97 10:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done

Great work deleting the image which I uploaded AND SPECIFICALLY LICENSED, on the basis that I didn't give permission. When I SPECIFICALLY TICKED ALL THE BLOODY BOXES SAYING I GIVE PERMISSION. This is the second time this has happened. Do you even want contributors or not?

You have to confirm the license through the so called Commons:OTRS procedure. regards. --Ju Ta 16:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

langbars

Hi, I've been removing langbars from layout templates for quite a while now, AFAIK they are depreciated because the template language is now automatically selected based on the respective user's interface language ({{Autotranslate}} etc.). Ping Jarekt who is doing the same. FDMS 4 22:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I was pinged but I am not sure what is the discussion about. I agree with the statement that language bars are not working in last few years since some automagical process is selecting the language of the template and clicking on the language links does not seem to work anymore. I removed them from most major templates 2 years ago after discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am missing the the "other languages" links at the bottom of the template. I think they are sensefull to keep because of documentation reasons. If I i.e wanna see the text of the french version of a template because the uploader is french its just a click; wihout´them I dont even know which other languages are existing. Or if I wnat to create a german verion of a language (my mother tongue) its much easier with the lang-templates than without. I think they doesn't hurt and should be kept. I didn't noticed that some of them allready got deleted in the past. regards. --Ju Ta 04:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

{{TemplateBox}} has its own language links, see for example Template:FoP-Austria#Localization. You can easily switch template languages using the Universal Language Selector, which shouldn't take more than a few clicks either. I disagree that they didn't hurt, especially on pages with several templates they took up quite a lot of space that can now be used for purposes that are meaningful to more users. FDMS 4 14:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jarekt: This thread is in response to these reverts: Special:Diff/167258336, Special:Diff/167258196. FDMS 4 14:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Juta, Let's do a quick experiment. One of the templates you reverted was {{FoP-Austria}} which among other images is used on File:Mahnmal01.jpg. Go to that file and click on the language links to see if they work for you. For me and many others those links do not seem to lead to that's language subtemplate or to change the language of the template. For last 2-3 years those links do not seem to do anything. The only way to see the template in other language is to change your preferred language on the top of the page, but that does not require those links. That is why after some discussion I removed them from most of the templates (all the ones with 4-5 lines of languages) and now you only still see them with lesser used templates. --Jarekt (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, with "open in a new tab" the link is working, but mainly thats correct. I just compared it with other FoP templates and found that most (still) have the lang page (see here). I also wonder about the general selectiv deletion of lang templates (see here). And after which discussion you deleted it, I can't find it. --Ju Ta 10:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem was most pressing with license templates with multi-lane language links, especially the pages where you had {{PD-Art}} wrapper around country of origin and US templates. With such templates majority of space was used up in language links. I do not recall now which forum was used for the discussion at it has been some years now, but the changes were only done to templates with many languages with hopes that others will follow. --Jarekt (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Numerous admins delete langbars, there was a discussion, so could we call your opinion the minority POV and you delete the two pages anyway? After all, nothing gets lost by doing so; I'm not requesting the deletion of /lang template subpages using an automated tool but evaluate their use on a case-per-case basis. FDMS 4 03:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Ezra Wheeler photo?

I can't see that there's anything wrong with the license tag for the photo of Ezra Wheeler, File:Ezra Wheeler (Wisconsin Congressman).jpg. Even though I had included the National Archives Identifier in the text, I went back and added it to the license tag when you first commented that I had not included the ID with the license tag. Done. Finished. Thanks for pointing that out.

Now you've flagged the photo again as still needing a valid license tag, but with no explanation. How am I supposed to work with that? I have no idea what you think is (still) supposedly wrong with the license tag. And as far as I'm concerned, there's NOTHING wrong with it. It's a valid license tag for a National Archives photo, and it has a valid identifier number. Unless you know something I don't, we're done here.

And if you do know something I don't, then how about if you tell me every single thing you think is wrong with this photo, and do it all at once, so I can make whatever corrections you think are needed, and make them all at once. Quit it with the death by a thousand cuts approach.

Billmckern (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for good measure, I also added the old 100 tag. Wheeler died in 1871, and Brady died in 1896.

Billmckern (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, thx. --Ju Ta 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding the Worthington Industries Logo

Hi JuTa, I am fairly new to Wikimedia and not entirely sure how to format the permission. The logo I uploaded is from the worthingtonindustries.com site. Here are the specifications listed there for the use of the logo: "The Worthington Industries logo should be reproduced only as it was designed, and should never be recreated or altered in any way." Could you provide some insight?

Hi, every image on commons needs to have a valid license template on its description page - see Commons:Licensing. Your Image was missing such a template an got deleted by that reason a week after upload. It was a rather simple logo. Next time you should use {{PD-textlogo}} together with {{Trademarked}} in such cases. For a long list of possible license templates see Commons:Copyright tags. regards. --Ju Ta 18:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

removal of {{No license}} tags

JuTa, I am puzzled by your removal of {{No license}} tags here, when the file does not have any license templates. --Jarekt (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't {{Insignia-Israel}} a license template? It came likely to my attention when I checked that catscan linked outof Category:Media without a license. regads. regards. --Ju Ta 20:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We do have a lot of templates which are related to this or that legal restrictions: {{Personality}} rights, {{Trademark}}} rights, {{Insignia}} restrictions, even {{Swastika}} come to mind, but they are not related to copyrights. Regards --Jarekt (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, but that one "looked" different. --Ju Ta 07:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Plant genitalia

I noticed you emptied the category Plant genitalia and deleted it on grounds of our being an empty category. That's not the proper procedure. If you want to delete a category that has valid content (like this one did; I know since I added some back in the day; you previously deleted an entire subcat for this one), you need to put the category under discussion. --Pitke (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently I'm working on Special:UncategorizedCategories and this was only one of many. This cat has been emptied by another user with the comment (There is no such thing) and only 2 images of some close ups of flowers were in. To me it looks like plant genitala is just another but very unusual name for flowers. The 2 images I removed the cat are still in subcats of Category:Flowers. So I just reduced some over categorization. regards. --Ju Ta 07:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It was categorized under Plant anatomy and Genitalia prior to Sminthopsis84's blanking of the page. In any case, the category may have been badly named but plant parts for sexual reproduction are not limited to flowers (see w:Plant reproductive morphology) but also encompass things like strobilia. --Pitke (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with removing images

You have recently been removing images that I had uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I think there must be a misunderstanding. Can you please stop removing these images until we have cleared this up? All the images that are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons via the SuSanA Flickr photo database have the correct licence: CC-BY SA. Perhaps Doc_James can help out here. We didn't send individual e-mails about each image to Wikimedia Commons as that would have been 10,000 of them! EvM-Susana (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, which images exactly you are talking about? You dont have any deleted edits/uploads on commons. --Ju Ta 19:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There was a donation of 10,000 images from SUSANA uploaded by User:Fae. User:EvM-Susana do you have the specific files that were deleted? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

These ones here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an informal friendly moratorium on the deletion of SuSanA photographs. The couple of DRs so far raised against the collection have been sorted out by the charity/EvM within a few days. Unless there are fully unambiguous accidental copyright problems (say, a Mickey Mouse doll, or a close-up of a Coke bottle), then we can make a presumption that it is safe to leave any DR open for 3 or 4 weeks rather than the normal 7 days. I'm sure that so long as EvM is notified (perhaps by pinging an email to make sure) then we can expect an aye or nay back within a reasonable time.

P.S. I don't have the deletion stats so far, but could pull the numbers from the wiki-database for the project when I have some more spare time. My impression is that the deletion rate is extremely low compared to most batch upload projects. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, those images had authors Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, Ph., Zurbrügg, C. on the description page and were correctly marked as no permission, there was no indication the OTRS could be in progress. I don't see anything wrong with these deletions. If there are written permission from the authors feel free to reupload the files, but this time don't forget to add {{OTRS pending}}. regards. --Ju Ta 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(@Martin Kraft: FYI)

There are 10,000 more images and I doubt any are marked with authors identical to the Flickrstream name. The charity is an umbrella for other contributing organizations, there is no policy requirement for an OTRS release for every photograph. The fact that the photographs are released on the Flickrstream means they are released by the charity acting as an agent for the contributing organizations. There is no pattern of copyright problems here, so good faith in the correct copyright release at source should be sufficient to meet the intention of COM:PRP.

JuTa, I can ask EvM-Susana to send in a generic release for the entire Flickrstream that states this, but adding an open-ended generic ticket to all 10,000 uploads would be a nonsense as the official Flickrstream itself states publicly:

"The photos have been contributed by various people, and all the photographers' names are given with the photos or the respective photo sets.

The photos are all available under Creative Commons Licence (Attribution) and you are free to use them."

Perhaps if you do not personally find this sufficient, you could recommend some suitable words for SusanA to add to their profile page?

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hhhm, are we talking about the same images? I'm talking about i.e. File:Tilley et al 2014 Schematic of the Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland.jpg (as noted by User:Doc James above). There was no indication of flickr. The named source was Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies - (2nd Revised Edition). Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Duebendorf, Switzerland. And it was not a photo but diagram. About which images i.e. you are talking about? The same? some diffrent? If yes, please link some examples. regards. --Ju Ta 16:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I was talking generically, my question is what would satisfy you from here on, if stated on the official Flickr profile page?

With regard to the specific example, the SSWM have released the same image on their website as CC-BY-SA. The site states "The eCompendium is the digital version of the popular and well-know reference-manual Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies published by Eawag/Sandec, WSSCC and IWA." The quoted source paper published by Eawag (here) makes the original paper's contents free for reuse on a non-commercial basis, but gives special thanks to SuSanA as the first organization credited in the same paper. This would lead me to believe that the images were specifically released as part of the on-going partnership(s), and the images are considered by all parties to be CC-BY-SA, even if the whole paper itself had a NC restriction. --Fæ (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Such images would likely never come to my attention as long they are updated with a license an not marked as i.e. no permission by somebody else. For the given expample an only the pdf as given source I would delete it because I cannot find any CC clause in the pdf and it has a non-commercial clause. Perhaps you should reask on i.e. COM:village pump to get a wider audiance. --Ju Ta 23:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes these were uploaded by User_talk:Mll_mitch rather than with the bot by Fae. We should hopefully have this cleared up soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have got distracted by a tangent. I'd like to return to the question posed above, and as suggested have posted it at Commons:Village_pump#Generic_release_for_CC-BY_images_from_the_Sustainable_Sanitation_Alliance as we seem unlikely to reach a proposal here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will also put my reply here: Commons:Village_pump#Generic_release_for_CC-BY_images_from_the_Sustainable_Sanitation_Alliance. Sorry, I didn't have the e-mail notification for Wikimedia Commons ticked, so I didn't get these discussions until now. It's correct that we should have a blanket statement for the 10,000 photos on flickr in the SuSanA account; those from the eCompendium (Tilley et al.) were meant to be uploaded to flickr first by my co-worker User:Mll_mitch, so that in Commons, a link to the flickr page should have been given. This can easily by corrected. Therefore, once the blanket clearance for the 10,000 flickr photos is there, this would then also include these schematics from the eCompendium. Anyhow, will put the rest on the page Commons:Village_pump#Generic_release_for_CC-BY_images_from_the_Sustainable_Sanitation_Alliance. 7 days deletion notice is certainly very short. If one is on holidays for a week, it's already too late to react and stop the deletion. :-( EvM-Susana (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Rosa 'Angelina'

Hello JuTa,
I just noticed that you deleted the gallery Rosa 'Angelina' (in January). As far as I can see, without discussion or notifying the creator (probably me). As this is not the only rose cultivar gallery with only one picture, I'd really like a discussion about those one image galleries (I think I created at least two today). In my opinion they make sense, as it enables me to add some additional information about the cultivar, link that gallery from the alphabetic gallery, the breeder's gallery, connect related cultivars,...
There are of course two possibilities where to add this additional information - categories or galleries. As the rose cultivars were focused on galleries when I started to sort them out about five years ago - and I prefer galleries to convey information (the links are also shorter), that's how the rose cultivars are constructed, while categories are normally only created when a cultivar has more than three images (exceptions are mostly uploaders creating a category).
Of course it's possible to change that - but it would mean lots of work (there are more than 2000 rose cultivar galleries and probably at least half of them only contains one or two pictures of the cultivar). To simply delete galleries doesn't make any sense to me, as it would mean a loss of information (synonyms, breeder, year of cultivation, origin, cultivar group, parentage, awards) and a lot of red links.
Looking forward to your answer, --Anna reg (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, in January i went though Special:ShortPages and deleted a lot of empty or single image galleries. The reason Empty or single image gallery; please see Commons:Galleries is one of the standard drop down menu reason to delete a gallery. So I guess its quite normal to delete such. I dont see a benefit in such single image galleries. If someone clicks on the link on the source page, he does not see anything more than allready on the source page. The same (single) image and the same short text in some cases. regards. --Ju Ta 18:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello JuTa,

thanks for your answer. If you went over the Special:ShortPages the gallery probably contained hardly any information, which does make it easier for me to understand what happened - even though I still think that it would be a good idea to notify gallery creators before deleting a page - especially as I just reread Commons:Galleries and Commons:When to create a gallery and am reassured that the length and number of pictures is not essential in the decision if a gallery should be created/deleted or not.

I now recreated the gallery with the information it should contain and I'd like to know if you'd delete a gallery like that. The gallery still contains only one picture as sadly commons doesn't have more of that cultivar, but is linked to and from several pages, contains some additional information and is part of the rose cultivar galleries (which are all created after the same scheme).

Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I still see no sense in such galleries. But anyhow I'll leave it as it is. But no guarantee that somebody else (or myself) could check Special:ShortPages in near or far future again for empty or single image galleries. PS: You are (nearly) the first who is complaining about such a deletion, and I did a lot early this year. regards. --Ju Ta 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Just dropping by to mention that cultivar galleries don't only store information and enable linking, IMO their most important function is to help users organize rose cultivar media by holding differentiating info of similar or same named cultivars and hold synonyms to enable search results. I meant to protest similar removals earlier but being busy I forgot about it. Cannot remember if it was three months or two years ago though... --Pitke (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Just wanted to tell you to keep up the great administative work I've seen you been doing! I don't usually give away barnstars, but I thoght you deserved one ;) Josve05a (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

Hi JuTa: You will see your name in a few DN's today. You did nothing wrong and everything right but I'm unwilling to wait for those tags to be removed again in a never ending round-robin, so I nominated a pile of images that had all the same situation: They used to have a tag, they were thrown back into the pile without being fixed. That just wastes everyone's time and I'm tired of personal agendas and/or personal opinions getting in the way of the policies and guidelines. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again @JuTa: : Now I have mine in a pile of DN's about art of artists who have been dead less than 70 years. I had speedied them because they are obvious copyvios, but they were tossed back like fish too small to keep. If you have a chance, could you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2015/08/11? I very carefully looked up the years of each of the artists, from BBC art and Wikipedia. I'd be really surprised if that many dates are wrong. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ellin Beltz, I think User:Didym allready gave you a good answer on his talk page. But the undelete in categories should be realy added (with <noinclude> tags aound it). regards. --Ju Ta 05:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi JuTa: You're right on the good answer, but I don't understand the second part. Could you elaborate on "But the undelete in categories should be realy added (with <noinclude> tags aound it). ", please? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I now did that for one of the images - see here. Those cats are needed for easy undeletion in (far) future. The year is normaly the deathyear of the author +71. regards. Could you do the rest? --Ju Ta 06:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Shark Bay Malayalam.svg

Dear JuTa,

The file which I uploaded Shark Bay Malayalam is a derivative work of File:Shark Bay.svg[11]: What I have done is just translated the names to Malayalam Language. I could see a note "You are free to remix – to adapt the work" here.

How can I upload the translated version of the file??? What licence should I add? Please help me to add sufficient information on its copyright status instead of trying to delete it.

Regards --Arjuncm3 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you should use the same license template like on the souce image. I did that now for you - see here. regards. --Ju Ta 18:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Thyssen Krupp Hochhaus in Düsseldorf (vom Hofgarten aus).jpg

JuTa, I was looking at File:Thyssen Krupp Hochhaus in Düsseldorf (vom Hofgarten aus).jpg and other files using User:-jha-/Lizenz license, and I am quite confused about some files that use User:-jha-/Lizenz with cc-by-sa-3.0 licenses. User:-jha-/Lizenz / de:Benutzer:-jha-/Lizenz only support one Commons -compatible license: {{GFDL 1.2}}, but when they are moved to Commons they seem to acquire {{GFDL}} + {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Is the license of File:Thyssen Krupp Hochhaus in Düsseldorf (vom Hofgarten aus).jpg a mistake or did the deleted German original allowed it? --Jarekt (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it had de:Template:Bild-GFDL and de:Benutzer:-jha-/Lizenz in it. -jha- uploaded it in 2006 with GFDL and changed it in 2008 to "his" license, but got reverted in 2009 because the The retreat of this license is not possible. (on de: the opt-out of the GFDL relicense was not accepted). regards. --Ju Ta 05:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks for checking this for me. So my understanding is that for files transferred from de.wiki, the license should be {{GFDL}} + {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} + User:-jha-/Lizenz, but for local uploads only User:-jha-/Lizenz. I wonder if he just reuploaded to Commmons all his files from de.wiki under a new license so he can avoid {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. --Jarekt (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Tips

Hi, you reverted an edit i made about the category "tips". As i explained in the discussion page, the main category "landforms" is inappropriate for this one. Do you have some more proprer suggestion?--Ciaurlec (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, not realy. But the suggestion on User:Pitke on Category talk:Tips sounds not bad. Try to make it an {{Disambig}} category. Worst case you can replace the current category "landforms" with {{subst:unc}}. regards --Ju Ta 16:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

File

Sorry, that picture looks like is from here. http://www.animalplanethd.com/bull-terrier-galaxy-wallpaper-11422.html. --Hafspajen 15:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean this picture, nominated for deletion. --Hafspajen 15:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, another admin will decide your copyvio-request (hopefully soon). I don't see what elso I can or should do. regards. --Ju Ta 16:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wuillian Pérez

Delete, Hoax, promo and spam https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wuillian_Pérez?uselang=es --189.238.71.35 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please start one or multiple regular deletion requests for this category and/or the files within in - see Commons:Deletion requests. --Ju Ta 19:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)