User talk:KyotoFlowertourism

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, KyotoFlowertourism!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Please try to understand how categorisation works here in Wikimedia. For this read COM:CAT. Especially read COM:OVERCAT and stop putting the media both in its specific category and in many of its parent categories. - Takeaway (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also have a look at how I changed the the categories of Category:Ogishima Lighthouse. - Takeaway (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need to put Category:Ogishima Lighthouse into Category:Islands of Kagawa prefecture because the lighthouse was already categorized in Category:Ogishima, which is a subcategory of Category:Islands of Kagawa prefecture. Please try to understand how categorization works in Wikimedia. - Takeaway (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really urge you to read COM:OVERCAT. I have noticed from other media that you categorize, that you don't understand how categorization works in Wikimedia. - Takeaway (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't again revert the edits. Ogijima seems to be the correct transcription in English for the name. Ogishima is apparently an incorrect transcription ad that is why I requested its deletion.

Also, I ask you again to try to understand what COM:OVERCAT says: don't put media of the lighthouse in both Category:Ogishima Lighthouse and its parent Category:Ogijima. - 09:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am doing this because it is Wikimedia policy. You are going against the standard with your edits. Please ask someone at the Japanese Wikipedia with some real knowledge of Wikimedia for help if your English is poor and you can't understand the policy that I am referring to. Please also stop reverting edits that are correct. - Takeaway (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

男木島の呼称は、ogishima　です。　ogijima　では、ないのです。
- In Wikimedia we have to work with the name that is widely used in English. The island is transcripted as Ogijima in English, not as Ogishima. Look it up on Google Maps for instance. Look at all the other "-jima" names for island of Japan. - Takeaway (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
日本の島の呼称は、全てjima　というのは間違いですよ。jima　「じま」も、shima　「しま」もあります。

　例えば、ここは、https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8C%97%E6%9C%A8%E5%B3%B6　「しま」ですよ。- KyotoFlowertourism

- Please look up Ogishima and Ogijima on Google. Also look up "Ogishima Lighthouse" and "Ogijima Lighthouse" on Google. You will find that Ogijima is the transcription that is used. - Takeaway (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
男木島の呼称は、「おぎしま」ですよ。　https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%B7%E6%9C%A8%E5%B3%B6　- KyotoFlowertourism
- Take a look at the English wikipedia page which is named Ogijima. Wikimedia uses English for category names. That is why the category should be Ogijima and not Ogishima. - Takeaway (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- それなら、英語版が間違いです。英語版の中身もないですし、まだまだ未完のものです。この表記の方を修正してください。- KyotoFlowertourism
  - It is not a "mistake". Wikipedia, and also Wikimedia, uses the spelling which is the most commonly used in English. If you feel that this policy should be changed, please go to Commons:Village pump and post a question there about Japanese place names and how to transcribe them. - Takeaway (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 呼称表記が間違っているんです。たぶん最初に作成したときの間違いです。これから作成するものは、Wikipediaの日本語版の読みに、合わせるべきです。日本語を大切にしないと。- KyotoFlowertourism
  - As I wrote before, Wikimedia policy states that English usage is eminent. I do not make policy. Please take up your problem with Wikimedia naming conventions at Commons:Village pump. - Takeaway (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipediaに記載があるように、公式呼称は、「おぎしま」です。なので、「Category:Ogishima」で作成してます。過去のものは、そのままでいいので、新規からのものは、そのように修正すればいいと思います。「Category:Ogishima」で作成したものを削除しないでください。

「しまっぷ」　http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/KAN6/6_other/shimap/shimaindex_all.htm 　※「しまっぷ」は瀬戸内海に数多く存在する島のうち第六管区海上保安本部管内の島の読み方や場所などを表示する島ガイドのことです。日本の文化を大切に。呼称は重要ですよ。- KyotoFlowertourism

- - This is about a transcription. In English, Ogijima is more often used than Ogishima, both for the island as well as for the lighthouse. Wikimedia uses English for names. Please go to Commons:Village pump with your concerns if you think this is incorrect. I hope someone who is fluent in Japanese can explain to you how things work here. - Takeaway (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- 英語の数が多いからというのは、間違いです。日本の文化を抹殺する行為ですよ。

京都で考えると「舞妓」のことを「まいこ」と呼びます。「げいしゃ」とは誰も呼びません。また、京都では、舞妓と芸妓は、違います。しかし、英語の世界では、maikoがgeisha　になります。使われている数は、圧倒的にgeishaです。 maikoは、少ないです。これは、日本文化が間違って広まっている典型的な例です。花街の方々は、なるだけ、maiko　で発信しようとされています。- KyotoFlowertourism

- - - This is Wikimedia policy. If you want to change the policy, go to Commons:Village pump. It is no use fulminating over this to me on your talk page. - Takeaway (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipediaに記載があるように、公式呼称は、「おぎしま」です。なので、「Category:Ogishima」を作成します。私が関与した写真のみは、このカテゴリを付けます。日本の文化を大切にしたいので、邪魔をしないでください。- KyotoFlowertourism

If you recreate Category:Ogishima without first getting consent at Commons:Village pump, I will have to ask for moderators to look into this situation. It is against wikimedia policy to have 2 categories that are actually the same thing. This is not about being disrespectful towards Japanese culture, this is simply how Wikimedia works. - Takeaway (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the names of two Japanese Wikimedia moderators: User:Miya and User: whym. Please go ask them for advice. - Takeaway (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about your behaviour here on Wikimedia. You can find it here. - Takeaway (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- もういい加減に邪魔をしないでください。「カテゴリ　Ogishima Lighthouse」　を先に作成したのに、Ogijima Lighthouse　を後から作成し、Ogishima Lighthouse　を削除するとは横暴です。

　もっと、文化を勉強してください。

Perhaps you should try and understand Wikimedia. - Takeaway (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ogishima

@Takeaway: "男木島" is "おぎしま" in hiragana - see Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's official site. AND if officially "おぎしま" in hiragana, you should transcript it as "お(o) - ぎ(gi) - し(shi) - ま(ma)" - "Ogishima". I know it is VERY difficult for non-native Japanese speakers to understand how to read Japanese words, but please understand the relation of kanji and hiragana in Japan. Thanks.--miya (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read and try to understand Commons:Language policy: Category names should generally be in English. The spelling "Ogijima" seems to be used more often for this island in English than "Ogishima". For instance: the city that is commonly spelled as "Pattaya" in English, should actually be spelled "Phatthaya" if one follows the official Thai transcription system. Here on Wikimedia, the category is still named Pattaya even though it does not follow the official transcription, but because it is the most commonly found transcription in English. - Takeaway (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Japanese language has HIRAGANA, and understand how HIRAGANA works in Japanese (especially in relation to English). You reported to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems but none would second your opinion until it archived. If it were a thing in Thailand, Netherland or Germany, you may be right; if a thing in Japan, please listen to what other people would say. --miya (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand what I wrote. This has nothing to do with Hiragana. It is about which spelling is commonly used in English for the island. The reason why nobody replied to that post was probably because I specifically asked for Japanese administrators. If Japanese administrators don't show their faces on the board, why would someone else chip in? Please also read my reply on User talk:Whym. To be honest, I don't really care all that much if the categorisation of Japanese subjects is a mess., with double entries etc., due to transcription issues. I tried to rectify some when I came across it elsewhere but if you people can't seem to get a clear picture on how to name categories correctly, it is not my concern as I concentrate on other sectors of Wikimedia. - Takeaway (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway, I had requested w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan people to rename w:Ogijima to w:Ogishima and it was moved. I wish you would understand Hiragana spellings could be directly connected to English ones. I greatly thank your concern and care about category problems here, which I shold rather have taken care of.--miya (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COM:OVERCAT

:KyotoFlowertourism, beside the transcription "Ogijima", Takeaway was right. Let's look into what Takeaway said to you (I'll translate them for you):
KyotoFlowertourismさん、「Ogijima」以外のTakeawayさんの指摘は正しいです。上でのコメントを見てみましょう（翻訳してみます）：

Please try to understand how categorisation works here in Wikimedia. For this read COM:CAT. Especially read COM:OVERCAT and stop putting the media both in its specific category and in many of its parent categories.
ウィキメディアでどのようにカテゴリ付けが働いているか理解に努めてください。そのためにCOM:CATを読んでください。とりわけ、COM:OVERCAT/JAを読んで、メディアファイルに子カテゴリとその親カテゴリの両方をつけるのをやめてください。
Also have a look at how I changed the the categories of Category:Ogishima Lighthouse.
また、私がCategory:Ogishima Lighthouseのカテゴリをどのように変更したか、見てください。
There was no need to put Category:Ogishima Lighthouse into Category:Islands of Kagawa prefecture because the lighthouse was already categorized in Category:Ogishima, which is a subcategory of Category:Islands of Kagawa prefecture. Please try to understand how categorization works in Wikimedia.
男木島灯台のカテゴリ|を香川県の島のカテゴリに入れる必要は無かったのです。なぜなら、この灯台はすでに男木島のカテゴリにカテゴライズされていて、男木島のカテゴリは香川県の島のカテゴリのサブカテゴリ（子カテゴリ）だからです。どうかウィキメディアでどのようにカテゴリ付けが働いているか理解に努めてください。
I really urge you to read COM:OVERCAT. I have noticed from other media that you categorize, that you don't understand how categorization works in Wikimedia
COM:OVERCAT/JAを読んでください。あなたがカテゴライズした他のメディアファイルを見て、ウィキメディアでどのようにカテゴリ付けが働いているかあなたが理解していないことがわかりました。
Also, I ask you again to try to understand what COM:OVERCAT says: don't put media of the lighthouse in both Category:Ogishima Lighthouse and its parent Category:Ogijima.
またCOM:OVERCAT/JAがなんといっているか理解するようにしてください：その灯台のファイルに男木島灯台のカテゴリと親カテゴリの男木島のカテゴリの両方をつけないでください。

というわけで、Commons:カテゴリを読んでみてください。

Thank you.KyotoFlowertourism (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--miya (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Miya: I don't care if it's written Ogijima or Ogishima. In English (and Wikimedia is written in English still) the island is most commonly known under the spelling Ogijima. The category Ogijima has been used for years now here on Wikimedia before someone recently decided to start category Ogishima parallel to Ogijima. Apparently, no one else here on Wikimedia though that Ogijima was a "bad" name all these years until very recently. So please stop saying things about me which have nothing to do with me. I did not make the policy which states that things should preferably be written following the most commonly used spelling. I did not create category Ogijima. I did not name it as such on Google maps, and I did not create the English Wikipedia article. All I did was try to clear up the mess of parallel categories in this one instant when I came upon it in another category which I try to keep clean. So please keep me out of this transcription mess, and please try to figure out for yourself what Wikimedia policy says about category names. And if you don't like the present policy, go change it but keep me out of it. I want nothing to do with this mess, with this belligerent user, or with people who try to involve me with stuff I don't want to be involved with. - Takeaway (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway, I'm very sorry if I hurt your feeling. I know you did everything with Good will. Perhaps you know Commons policies far better than I. Yet let me say that we should not always believe in the output of Google translations or Google maps: there are full of mis-translations and mis-transcriptions - especially in case of Japanese-English or English-Japanese translations. Thanks.--miya (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about me "believing" a transcription or not. It is about which transcription is the most commonly used in English. Ogijima is just as correct as Ogishima. They each follow different transcription systems, with Ogishima apparently following the present official Japanese transcription, and Ogijima following an older (perhaps American?) system. As far as I know, Wikimedia policy states that the transcription which is most commonly found in English, is the one which should be used even if it doesn't conform to the present, official, transcription system. Takeaway (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is not a problem of "different transcription systems". It is only that "じま" are to be transcripted as "jima", and "しま" as "shima". So it IS a problem of Japanese - whether it is "じま" or "しま".--miya (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"じま" or "しま"

On the point of "じま" or "しま", I have to apologize you, Takeaway, that I jumped at a rough and hasty conclusion with only a few references (「しまっぷ」 or an online dictionary) and failed to do research deep enough. Toto-tarou pointed out that there are reliable references to "Ogijima" as well as to "Ogishima" at Category talk:Ogijima. I hastily did more research both in a neighbor library and online, and found:

「男木島おぎじま」 - 『日本歴史地名大系第三八巻　香川県の地名』平凡社　1989年
「男木島おぎじま」 - 『日本の島事典』（財）日本離島センター　1995年
「OGIJIMA 男木島　おぎじま」 - 『日本の島ガイド　SHIMADAS（シマダス）』（財）日本離島センター　2004年
「男木島おぎじま」 - 島面積(p.104)
KOTBANK
- 「男木島　おぎじま」 - ブリタニカ国際大百科事典小項目事典
- 「おぎ‐しま〔をぎ‐〕【男木島】」 - デジタル大辞泉
- 「〔香川県〕男木島(おぎじま)」 - 日本の地名がわかる事典
- 「男木島　おぎじま」 - 日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)の解説
男木島　おぎじま Ogi jima - Gazetteer of Japan 2007 (from 地名集日本（GAZETTEER OF JAPAN))

I'll write a detailed result of my research in Category talk:Ogijima later.--miya (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

男木島灯台,OGISHIMA　LIGHTHOUSE　です。by　タイトル：燈台要覧,著者：航路標識管理所編,出版年月日：明37.3

http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/847167/51?viewMode= 島名の表記は、国土交通省の表記に従うべきと思います。海図にも関係していますので。KyotoFlowertourism (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"地名集日本（GAZETTEER OF JAPAN)" is published by the Government of Japan(the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, and the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department of the Japan Coast Guard)　[1]: it is a quite reliable source.　Please post your comment to the category talk page Category talk:Ogijima.

『地名集日本（GAZETTEER OF JAPAN)』は日本政府の国土地理院および海上保安庁海洋情報部が「標準化された地名情報」をまとめたもので（2007年版が最新)、日本の地名の日本語表記（漢字、ひらがな）、ローマ字表記の出典としてきわめて信頼性の高いものです。詳しくはこちらをお読みください=> http://www.gsi.go.jp/kihonjohochousa/gazetteer.html http://www.gsi.go.jp/common/000055079.pdf　ご意見はカテゴリのノートCategory talk:Ogijimaにお願いします。--miya (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

結論

国土地理院と海上保安庁では、表記が異なっていました。 ●海上保安庁海洋情報部に確認した結果は以下のとおりです。「地名集日本２００７日本国政府」にあるとおり、読みは「おぎじま」です。なお、海図上は「男木島、Ogi Shima」と標記していますが、「Shima」の部分は読みではなく、「島」という地形を表現したもので、必ずしも正式な読みを表現したものではありません。 ●結論・男木島の表記は、おぎじま、Ogi Jima→Ogijima Island。・女木島の表記は、めぎじま、Megi Jima→Megijima Island。・北木島の表記は、きたぎしま、Kitagi Shima→Kitagishima Island。 KyotoFlowertourism (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

海上保安庁海洋情報部へのご確認ありがとうございました。--miya (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for asking Geographical Survey Institute to confirm the transcriptions for these island and concluding "おぎじま" and "めぎじま" for them.--miya (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

・国土交通省国土地理院から回答がありました。

「「男木島」ついて、読み仮名としては、国土地理院では「おぎじま」としております。英語の表記としては、国土地理院では、島名の英語表記として、島名（読み仮名のローマ字表記）＋"Island"を標準としており、「Ogijima Island」となります。（参考：島名の英語表記の統一の考え方） http://www.gsi.go.jp/kihonjohochousa/kihonjohochousa41012.html なお、地名集日本については、読みのローマ字表記を記載しています。」KyotoFlowertourism (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags

español ∙ galego ∙ English ∙ français ∙ Deutsch ∙ suomi ∙ עברית ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ македонски ∙ polski ∙ Nederlands ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ українська ∙ русский ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from images that you have uploaded yourself. If you do not believe the image deserves to be deleted, then click "Challenge speedy deletion" to convert the tag to a regular deletion request. Thank you.

Motopark (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not add picture to gategory at this way

do not add picture to gategory at this way [2], it's wrong way.--Motopark (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gracia 2015 1.png

File:Gracia 2015 1.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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

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

Taivo (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

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

--Motopark (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:KitagiMemorial 2015 13.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Motopark (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Maiko20151201 02 01.jpg

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maiko20151201 02 01.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Maiko20151201 02 01.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, DAJF (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Maiko20151201 03 07.JPG

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maiko20151201 03 07.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Maiko20151201 03 07.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, DAJF (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Maiko20151201 05 05.jpg

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maiko20151201 05 05.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Maiko20151201 05 05.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, DAJF (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

・舞妓さん撮影会は、ここに記載の主旨のもとに開催しています。　　 User:KyotoFlowertourism 　Wikimedia Commnsへ投稿することを前提に撮影会を開催し、提供された写真の公開は撮影者の意志にもとづくものです。　その投稿代行を私が担っています。KyotoFlowertourism (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

こんにちは。DAJFと申します。写真を撮影した方の代わりにCommonsに投稿うしていただく場合、画像の著作権者である撮影者からの正式な使用許諾が必要になります。お手数になりますが、この説明を読んでいただいて、Wikimediaへ撮影者からの使用許諾についてご連絡ください。既にアップしていただいている画像は、メールでの正式な使用許諾がない場合、一週間後に削除されますので、ご了承ください。 --DAJF (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

もっと正確に言うと、Wikimedia　Commnsでの公開を条件に、写真著作権の提供を受けています。権利を私の手元に移して、写真を投稿したものです。KyotoFlowertourism (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

その場合でも、上記のように、Wikimediaへ撮影者からの使用許諾連絡が必要となります。 --DAJF (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

そんなに急いで削除して、誰が喜ぶのですか？　撮影者も花街も誰も喜びませんよ。削除したものを、一旦、もとに戻してください。

必要な許諾連絡は、直ぐにはできません。それぞれの方に説明し、必要な対応をするには時間がかかります。2016年2月29日を目標に取り組み始めています。KyotoFlowertourism (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

使用許諾無しでは削除撤回は不可能ですが、元の撮影者からのご連絡が送られてCommons側で確認されましたら、KyotoFlowertourismさん自身はCommons:削除撤回依頼で元の画像の削除撤回を依頼することができます。今すぐでなくても、来年になっても問題ありませんので、焦る必要はないです。 --DAJF (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Maiko20151201 06 01.jpg

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maiko20151201 06 01.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Maiko20151201 06 01.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, DAJF (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Maiko20150621 1 1.jpg

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maiko20150621 1 1.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Maiko20150621 1 1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, DAJF (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Maiko 20150315 3 2.jpg

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maiko 20150315 3 2.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Maiko 20150315 3 2.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

DAJF (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Maiko 20150215 8 2.jpg

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maiko 20150215 8 2.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Maiko 20150215 8 2.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

DAJF (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Maiko20151201 04 01.JPG

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

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maiko20151201 04 01.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Maiko20151201 04 01.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

DAJF (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2015-11-22_Kimihiro_at_Eiunin

Category:2015-11-22_Kimihiro_at_Eiunin 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 ∙ +/−

Achim (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:KyotoFlowertourism

Contents