User talk:Mhmrodrigues/Archive 6

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.

File:FrederickCatherine.jpg

File:FrederickCatherine.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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

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

—LX (talk, contribs) 22:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

Yann (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Beatrice di arborea - 2013.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Beatrice di arborea - 2013.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Beatrice di arborea - 2013.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ruthven (msg) 11:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ugo Mariano.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ugo Mariano.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Ugo Mariano.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ruthven (msg) 11:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Mariano IV 1.jpg

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

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

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

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

Ruthven (msg) 11:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Campana Ugone III d'Arborea.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:Campana Ugone III d'Arborea.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:Campana Ugone III d'Arborea.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Ruthven (msg) 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Leonor de Aragon.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Leonor de Aragon.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Leonor de Aragon.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ju Ta 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

File:JantheGood.jpg

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

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

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

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

77.255.85.218 11:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

File:JantheGood.jpg

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

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

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

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

77.255.85.218 11:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

File:JantheGood.jpg

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

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

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

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

77.255.85.218 11:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Henry VIII the Sparrow.png

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

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

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

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

87.105.244.252 09:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Waclaw of Zator.jpg

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

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

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

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

85.14.102.238 12:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Legniccy-herb.png

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

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

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

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

159.205.163.21 16:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Elisabeth_of_Hungary_in_statues

Category:Elisabeth_of_Hungary_in_statues 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 ∙ +/−

– b_jonas 11:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:PapArmenia.jpg

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

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

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

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

95.84.163.244 12:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ogiva

Hello, Mhmrodrigues! I just wanted to thank you for creating a lovely depiction of Ogiva of Luxembourg. This image was put by me in one article on Croatian Wikipedia, and in one on Bosnian Wikipedia. Hope you're fine, and that you'll continue your work.--Mychele Trempetich (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Catalan.jpg

And also:

File:Catalan2.jpg

Yours sincerely, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

File tagging File:Spinetta Malaspina.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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Spinetta Malaspina.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).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

—LX (talk, contribs) 15:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Wladyslaw Opolczyk.jpg

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

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

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

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

77.255.93.176 12:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Afons1.jpg

File:Afons1.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Patently false licensing claims. https://nationalgeographic.sapo.pt/historia/grandes-reportagens/953-afonso-henriques clearly states "Copyright © 2019 National Geographic Portugal. Todos os direitos reservados."

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

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

—LX (talk, contribs) 21:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Sanchaportugal.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:Sanchaportugal.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:Sanchaportugal.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

—LX (talk, contribs) 21:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:VarenneNeuchatel.jpg

File:VarenneNeuchatel.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: False licensing claims. Alamy does not publish its content under CC-by-sa.

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

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

—LX (talk, contribs) 21:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Sanchaportugal.jpg

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

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

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

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

Arthur Crbz (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Sanchaportugal.jpg

File:Sanchaportugal.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Misuse of {{PD-Art}} tag. Modern photograph of three-dimensional subject.

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

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

—LX (talk, contribs) 15:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The image is a photo that I took from the mentioned book. It's not properly my work, as I'm not related to any content of the book. I just read it and took a photo. How should I classify it? I'm not sure... Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the file description, the book was published in 1983, and the country of origin appears to be Portugal. The photograph in the book depicts a three-dimensional object, which has depth and casts shadows, unlike a two-dimensional (flat) work such as a painting. The photographer had to choose which angle to shoot from and which light sources to use. Therefore, while the depicted object may not be protected by copyright, the photograph in the book is eligible for copyright protection, and {{PD-Art}} does not apply to it. It seems very likely that the photograph in the book was created around the same time as the book. Since copyright in Portugal only expires after the author has been dead for 70 years, the photographer's copyright will not expire for several decades.

You have uploaded several modern photographs created by other people with completely made-up licensing claims or incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Art}}. This constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. You need to stop doing that. You have already been blocked several times for uploading copyright violations. It is very likely that your next block will be indefinite.

Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started, as this makes conversations easier to follow. I am watching this page, so I will see responses made here. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, this time is for good. I won't upload any more images of my own or that I have found. I'll simply replace images that have problems like bad color, or a not very good definition. Thanks for advising me. Greetings,Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I might take back what I said. I would like to upload images that I've taken, not from any book, but from my own presence in some places. And what comes to the other images, I'll try to check the license first...Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. If you are uncertain, you can always ask at Commons:Help desk before uploading. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 11:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow policy

Hello! Please follow established policy for default sorting. We do not sort by first name unless the person is royal. In all other cases we sort by surname. There is no room for deviation, because that screws everything up. Consistency is importart. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Your questions on my talk page: "Ok, but you mean just royal, or also some ranks of nobility? I think it's probably better to take out the Hessensteins from the Category: House of Hesse, to avoid confusions between defaultsorts by first and/or last name."

All members of nobilty have surnames and those should always be used for the default. Whether or not the Hessensteins should be considered members of the House of Hesse is debatable. I have no firm opnion on that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When deciding how to sort a category for a royal or noble person, we also have to look at whether the category name includes the person's surname. If it doesn't (for example, Category:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, we don't sort by it. This also goes for people who are known by only one name: not only people who lived before surnames were common, but people like Category:Cher (singer) and Category:Madonna (entertainer). --Auntof6 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) Nobility and royalty are two very different things; (2) all nobility has and uses surnames; (3) no royalty has or uses surnames. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

your category moves

Hi, could you please tell us the reason for category moves like Category:Ludwig Gruno von Hessen-Homburg → Category:Louis Gruno of Hesse-Homburg and many more? I treat them as not helpful. English language is not a valid reason as they are proper names. --Achim (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully support those moves. German royalty born before 1918 would not have "von" but "of" in the English version of their names, "av" in the Swedish version, "de" in the French & Spanish versions, etc. After 1918, "von" became a part of their actual legal names, in German as in any other language. Example: Emperor Wilhelm II, in English, was not Wilhelm von Germany. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, that's not the point. I think it's not a good idea to rename a so baptized "Wilhelm" to "William" or a "Ruprecht" to "Robert" or a "Johannes" to "John" or a "Ludwig" to "Louis" and so on. Only in non-latin based languages like kyrillic ones or Japanese that might be helpful. --Achim (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Anyway, even on wikipedias we have inconsistent use: en:William I, German Emperor, en:Wilhelm II, German Emperor, de:William, Duke of Cambridge, de:Wilhelm III. (Oranien), so we won't find a solution I think. Best, --Achim (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Achim, I post a comment on your talk page to be easier for you, but as you said to continue here I'll post my comment here as well. In the matter of categorizing, I think you made a dubious comment. Albeit not agreeing with my procedure you admit that there are pages with differences in name styles, in some way justifying my method. Sorry, I know you don't agree with my point of view, but if you think that my moves are in some way confusing, pro-english, or even agressive to this wiki, please tell me, and I'll stop them. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I also think these moves should not be made. If I am looking for the composer Beethoven, I am going to look under Ludwig, not Louis. These categories should remain under the people's actual names; personal convenience should not be a factor. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi! We are talking here about rulers, whose names are more frequently translated to other languages. Artists (Philosophers, musicians, painters) like Ludwig van Beethoven are out of question, as their names are usually written in the native language. For example, I'm not German and I say "Ludwig van Beethoven", but for Louis XIV of France, you can pronounce "Ludwig XIV" in German, "Luigi XIV" in Italian, or "Luís XIV" in Portuguese and Spanish. My idea is to make easier the research of members of a noble house. Listing all people named Louis as "Louis", instead of parting them between "Ludwigs" and "Louis" would help. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This, to me, is about the word "von" being used in German and translated to English as "of" when it comes to royalty. If we can keep the discussion focused on that, my comments are still relevant. Never has any German emperor, empress, king, queen, prince or princess been referred to in English as "von Germany". That's how simple this is. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not the issue here. The issue is that Mhmrodrigues has been renaming categories to translate people's names into English. An example is given at the beginning of this section, and you can see more examples in this user's contributions. Examples are changing Ruprecht to Robert, and changing Leonor to Eleanor. Commons does have a general rule that category names should be in English, but that rule doesn't apply to people's names. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Auntof6, you didn't comment my answer to you above. Didn't you understand my point? Any doubts please ask. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Historic exonyms have been used for the names of individual persons of history in all kinds of academic and other literature for centuries. Ignoring that (or not even knowing it?) is not helpful. Well-established throughout the the English language everywhere. No need for Commons to stop using them. Exyonyms are very helpful for pronunciation and have been created by intelligent linguists. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm just using exonyms because they make seach more simple. It's very common the use of exonyms in monarchs, as you say, for better pronunciation of those names. I've chosen the English language because it is the best understood by users throughout the world. Giving that, I don't understand why all this discussion. I feel like every edit I make has to be criticized...I've been notified by creating a page of a noble who was said that "wasn't important for the wiki" and they would delete it, if the vote they made didn't work out as a tie; all my problems in file uploadings which I already recognized I did wrong. I find so much resistance to my editions that sometimes I feel I should just stop editing... - Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Creating new things is different from renaming a bunch of categories that have existed for some time. When you create something new, you can decide what to name it. With existing categories, it's best to discuss before renaming. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree that moves that obviously make Commons more handy in English, by using standard English solutions, need to be discussed, and thousands of old categories could have better names. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

One day in the future unique category names will disappear anyway and will be replaced by an ID. First few steps are done on wikidata. So a single category will simultaneously have many names like William the Conqueror's (for example) → d:Q7368210 shows "Category:William the Conqueror" as well as "Kategorie:Wilhelm I. (England)" or "Catégorie:Guillaume le Conquérant". So I will no loger waste my time in cat naming (except correcting obvious errors or typos). --Achim (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great! Neither yours nor ours then. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with this ID method. It's more fair. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Move not great

Hello! This category move was not great. She is primarily known as a Regent of Sweden and Norway, not as Duchess of Estonia. Could you please fix this? I rally don't know how. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

File:D. Isabel de Avis, Rainha de Castela (1428-1496) - Genealogia de D. Manuel Pereira, 3.º conde da Feira (1534).jpg

File:D. Isabel de Avis, Rainha de Castela (1428-1496) - Genealogia de D. Manuel Pereira, 3.º conde da Feira (1534).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

RickMorais (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Pfalzgraf von Tübingen

I noted that you removed Category:Pfalzgraf (Tübingen) and added Category:Montfort family (Swabia) to several files. I think further fine tuning is required and I request that you do this, please. Are you sure that all pfalzgrafs of Tübingen belong to the Montfort family? I think that the pfalzgrafs were there first, and the Montforts are some of their successors. Anyway, I do not think that your changes were an improvement, and I kindly request to explain or revert them, please. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Mauritia Eleanor of Portugal

Hi Mhmrodrigues, could you take a look at the recent addition? Not sure if if is her, need expertise here. Thank you for your time. :-) Lotje (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ulrich_II,_Count_of_Montfort-Tettnang

Ulrich II, Count of Montfort-Tettnang 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 ∙ +/−

NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Maria_Theresa_of_Montfort,_Abbess_of_Buchau

Maria Theresa of Montfort, Abbess of Buchau 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 ∙ +/−

NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:John_III,_Count_of_Montfort-Pfannberg

John III, Count of Montfort-Pfannberg 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 ∙ +/−

NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hugh_III_of_Werdenberg-Heiligenberg

Hugh III of Werdenberg-Heiligenberg 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 ∙ +/−

NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:House of Tübingen in Werdenberg

Could you please explain this please? What is House of Tübingen in Werdenberg supposed to be? There were the Palinate Counts of Tübingen. A decendent branch became the Counts of Montfort. And there were the Counts of Werdenberg who partitioned of from the Monfort. But there was no House of Tübingen Rule, or a continuiation of that House in those Lines as you suggest that justifies creating of Original Research Categories. --Wuselig (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please allow me to copy the response you put on my Discussion page here. It makes more sense to keep discussions together and others can also follow more easily.

Hi! I just wanted to compile the branches of the family, as they all descend from the House of Tubingen. I don't know to which point they are independent families, or branches of the same dynasty. Is the House of Werdenberg completely independent, for example, from the House of Montfort? Or the Montforts from the Tubingens? It's hard to say, as the lands were divided, and then acquired from different branches of the family. When Werdenberg-Heiligenberg is annexed to Montfort, it's considered that the land remained in the family? It's hard to say, so I preferred to compile them. Also, if you notice, when I edited the rulers' tables for Counts of Montfort and Werdenberg, I always call the ruling family as House of Tubingen. I hope it's not a big mistake...Mhmrodrigues (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice. And I think it is a big mistake and should be reverted. You cannot construct a "ruling family" where there is no such thing, but just different houses. In a larger sense they did consider themselves family, but family in the sense of heritage and ancestry and linage, which was very important at the time. But that didn't keep these family branches from even feuding amongst each other at one time and founding alliances, or joining the same noble societies at others. I think you should keep the families apart by name, but can join them by categories. In other words the Werdenbergs as subcategory of the Monfort and the Montfort as a subcategory of the Counts of Tübingen. --Wuselig (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wuselig: Reversal done. Thank you so much for warning me in time!!! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think Category:Pfalzgraf (Tübingen) should be a subcategory of Category:House of Tübingen. Pfalzgrafs should be in Category:Pfalzgraf (Tübingen), Grafs should be in Category:House of Tübingen. At the moment is very confusing, indeed. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think Category:Coats of arms of Montfort should not be a subcategory of Category:Coats of arms of the House of Tübingen. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think Category:Castles and Residences of the House of Montfort (Swabia) should not be a subcategory of Category:Castles and Residences of the House of Tübingen- --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@NearEMPTiness: Wow! Your answers are a bit unorganized, and you think a lot!!! :D Yes, the category of Pfalzgraf (Tübingen) is reserved for the Palatine Counts of Tübingen, when their categories open. I was thinking in changing its name to english, "Counts Palatine of Tübingen", I think it's easier to understand. For the rest, Tübingen - Montfort - Werdenberg: as Montfort family is a branch of the House of Tübingen, I think it makes sense the integration of Montfort family castles and coats of arms, as a separate category, inside the category reserved for Tübingen. As you can see, the same was done to the House of Werdenberg, which is a branch of the Montfort family: castles and coats of arms are, under separate categories, inside the respective Montfort family categories. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that 'Counts Palatine of Tübingen' would be a better name than 'Pfalzgraf (Tübingen)'.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the family categories can be linked upward to the originating family. But the coat of arms should be kept within the families. With the dispansion and the loss of the title of Counts Palatine of Tübingen the decendens didn't adhere to a family name associated with Tübingen anymore. We had a similar discussion with the House of Baden, which lived by its new identity very well for centuries and only revivived some earlier link to the Zähringen family in the 19th century, when by the grace of Napoleon they were suddendly bestowed lands that had passed from theses ancient ancesstors to other owners (for example the Habsburgs) and these former, almost forgotten ties were reinvented to forge a new national identity. Nothing of this has happdened with the Monforts and Werdenbergs and it is not for us to try to rebuilt this kind of structure. --Wuselig (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wuselig: Hi! Thank you for your suggestions! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop re-numbering the nobles according to your own system!

Please stop translating and re-numbering the nobles according to your own system, as in your Category:Ulrich II, Count of Montfort-Tettnang for File:Ulrich VII. 'der Jüngere' von Montfort-Tettnang.jpg! This will be too confusing and doesn't make sense to anyone but you. These are historic names, not names chosen by Wikipedians! --NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@NearEMPTiness: Sorry, but I don't get why the german system numbers all members of a family, if they are not ruling. In the case of the Antons, I didn't find any count Anton I prior to this Anton II who died in 1736 (the one I call Anton I). Maybe the first Anton was co-ruling and I could add it to the list of counts?

And, are you sure there were six counts Ulrich before this one? Ok, I can say there were. But did you see my edits in the wiki page of Counts of Montfort? There I assume a single numbering for all Montfort branches and ocasionally this Ulrich the Younger happens to be the VII. Can you verify the system I use in that page, and tell if I can use it in the commons categories, please? If you approve it, I'll change the numberings. Thank you for discussing this with me. I'll check if the first Anton ruled (or co-ruled) Montfort or not. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wuselig: and @Stolp: Do you have any recommendations regarding the numbers of our nobles in categories? I propose to keep the German names and numbers as in the German Wikipedia articles. I think VIAF and GND would be reliable sources. I absolutely und defitively object to inventing new numbers, as for instance in Category:Anton_IV._von_Montfort, which cannot be found in reliable references! --NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@NearEMPTiness: Please note that I didn't change the numbering in the Wikidata box. But why numbering an Anton who didn't rule the county of Montfort as Anton IV? It's just confusing... Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

History is confusing indeed, but it's not worth trying to simplify it. The articles in the German Wikipedia follow the traditional numbering scheme ("dynastische Zählung") and no original research should be done within the scope of this project, to come-up with a better way of numbering these aristocrats. Do not even think about it, please! --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way: The German Wikipedia is very specific about de:Anton IV. von Montfort: "Er regierte zwar mangels eigener Herrschaft niemals selbst, wird aber dennoch gemeinhin als Anton IV. in die dynastische Zählung der Montforts einbezogen." Therefore, I am pretty sure that his number is no mistake. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The numbering of the Counts of Monfort and the Counts of Werdenberg are highly complicated and confusing and at the time when I was more active researching them I nearly resigned. Unfortunately even the literature is not consistent and with the many branching-offs of families the counting differs according to the branch the person is accorded to.

I think it would help us @Mhmrodrigues: with what background and what interests you are going about into wanting to put order into the family business of the Monforts and Werdenbergs? I think it is a herculean task and I am willing to put a lot of good faith into somebody who takes this on. But good faith is born in trust and trust is founded in the understanding of motives.--Wuselig (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wuselig: Hi again! I'm excited that we have here people who studied this family, which means you can give a big contribution here! Have you seen the pages of "Counts of Montfort" and "Counts of Werdenberg"? I agree with you, this numberings are so hard to understand. Well, my motives: 1) I've been researching monarchies of Europe, and then I fell on Switzerland and this multiple states and switching dominant noble families (since the Lenzburgs to the Habsburgs), and then I discovered that this family ruled a part of now eastern Switzerland. I became interested to know and since when the family had dominance in Swiss land. 2) I've been doing similar tables on various noble lists, with the objective of simplifying and at the same time offer a better comprehension of the different parts of various lands and its sometimes different rulers. For more of my work see List of rulers of Baden, List of rulers of Saxony, List of rulers of Brandenburg, List of rulers of Bavaria,Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg, Counts of Schauenburg and Holstein, List of Pomeranian duchies and dukes, Duke of Masovia, Duke of Silesia, Margraviate of Moravia, and others (like the Swiss House of Toggenburg, more recently) ; 3) I would want to categorize better the members of this family in Wikimedia Commons, like I did with other families as well, and I can only do this when the numberings used are defined and agreeing with the information in the wiki page. Is any of these motives valid? However, I don't speak or read in German, so I don't have access to many sources. Probably you can't put that all faith for me to continue the research part, but I want to help you or whoever has more knowledge in the matter. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

One of the first things you have to abandon when studying medieval European and especially German history is the notion of "ruling over territories". These "rulers" held their rights by fiefs. That makes studying such families like the Monforts and Werdenbergs who divided their inheritance among their decedents so freely, also so complicated. It wasn't really the land that was divided, but the people working on that land, or the right to hold court of justice at a special place, or to appoint the priests in certain churches. That is the explanation of all this back and forth in those lineage names. The Werdenbergs and Monforts also didn't rule part of Swizerland. They (or parts of their families) joined a Confederacy with other independent partners. Especially in South-western Germany this feudal order held on longer than in the rest of Germany. So even if the Habsburg Family, or the Dukes of Bavaria managed to transit into territorial rule earlier, even Germany, as opposed to France and England didn't achieve a centralized territorial State until 1871. And even in Great Britain, or the United Kingdom, or the Commonwealth you still see remnants of this old feudal allegiance to persons instead of states. A subject of the crown swears allegiance to the Queen, an American to the Flag. So keeping this in mind doesn't make the sorting process you are trying to achieve easier, but it helps into understanding that you sometimes have to accept dead-ends when you wish to find a straight order. Also in historiography the explanation of history in territorial terms was the the big thing in the 19th and early 20th century, when Nationalism was the order of the day. That is why the history books we refer to lead us to think in these territorial terms. Today when Confederations and Unions in Europe become more important again, this study of confederate elements in earlier European history becomes more into the focus of current historians again. --Wuselig (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wuselig: Of course, you're right, but you might have misunderstood me: I never meant that these families ruled in Switzerland. What I wanted to say is that they ruled in the land that today corresponds to Eastern Switzerland. I've studied Medieval History and I know very well that many of this petty fiefs didn't evolve by themselves into something related to a state. What I mean is that these families ruled inside of modern Switzerland's borders: Lenzburg, Zahringen, Kyburg, Thierstein, Frohburg, Toggenburg, Montfort, Werdenberg, Habsburg...all these families somehow had dominance in land that belongs today to Switzerland. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Mhmrodrigues/Archive 6

Your account has been blocked

File source is not properly indicated: File:Beatrice di arborea - 2013.jpg

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ugo Mariano.jpg

File tagging File:Campana Ugone III d'Arborea.jpg

File source is not properly indicated: File:Leonor de Aragon.jpg

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Ogiva

Notification about possible deletion

File tagging File:Spinetta Malaspina.jpg

File tagging File:Sanchaportugal.jpg

Follow policy

your category moves

Move not great

Pfalzgraf von Tübingen

Please stop re-numbering the nobles according to your own system!

Navigation menu

Search