User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Burlington House courtyard

Hi Mike, nice to hear from you ;-) I seem to have made updates to uploads of yours. Just to cater for my obsession with filming locations of Agatha Christie tv films. In this case the Nemesis episode starring Joan Hickson as Miss Marple. Her bus tour appears to start in this courtyard. I recognised it at first through the feet of the statue there and then the doors. And exploring further it just had to be this particular place. Cheers, --Judithcomm (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judith. Thanks for improving Wikimedia Commons' categories. :-) Thanks also for sharing the back story of why you made the edits - it's really interesting to hear. I didn't know that the courtyard was used as a filming location. I took the photo to illustrate the Royal Astronomical Society article, since at the time the article didn't have any photos, and it's always interesting to watch what happens to photos uploaded here as the years go by. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2014 (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 ∙ 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:International School for Advanced Studies 2.jpg

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frankfurt Zoo - Desert Dormouse.jpg

Eliomys melanurus, Selevinia betpakdalaensis - which species is correct? Kersti (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The label next to it read "Eliomys melanurus" (also "Wüstenschläfer"). Sorry, I'm not sure where the other one came from! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio telescopes in Australia

I notice that you recently deleted Category:Radio telescopes in Australia, redirecting it to Category:Telescopes in Australia. Why? What are the criteria that this category fails to meet?

This also means that some of the previous contents (which you moved out) - eg File:Deep Space Station 46, 1.JPG - are no longer under Category:Radio telescopes, but they should be. If Category:Radio telescopes in Australia is too specific, and thus an unnecessary category (and I disagree that it is), its previous contents should also be added to Category:Radio telescopes. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitch. Thanks for the message! I've been trying to figure out the best way to subcategorise Category:Radio telescopes; I've been taking the approach of creating a category for each notable radio telescope, and categorising that category as appropriate. I was trying to figure out how those linked in with the "X in country" categories, and it seemed logical to me that the focus for now should be on "Telescopes in country" categories (since three of those already existed) rather than "Radio telescopes in country" (of which Australia is the only one currently existing, as far as I can see). I'm not against the category, hence why I redirected it rather than nominating it for deletion; we could go for "Radio telescopes in country" categories if you'd be willing to help create them for more countries?

With regards File:Deep Space Station 46, 1.JPG, that (and the other images) are still in the category structure through Category:Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex. I'm not actually sure about whether they count as "radio telescopes", though, since they're used for tracking/communicating with space probes rather than radio astronomy. Maybe Category:Satellite dishes in Australia (or just Category:Earth stations, both of which the Canberra category is a subcat of) are better for these? What do you think?

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>I'm not against the category, hence why I redirected it rather than nominating it for deletion
Removing everything from the category is effectively the same as deleting it - in not much use as a category if it is empty!

I wouldn't agree with that assertion: deleting the category deletes the history of it, while redirecting it means that it can easily be reversed while keeping the full history of the category if needed. But I understand where you're coming from here.

> ... if you'd be willing to help create them for more countries
Is there some policy that says we must have more than one country Y before we can have an X in Y category? I spend most of my time and effort on Wikipedia rather than Commons; although I play around with the Commons categories a little bit, eg when categorizing photos that I uploaded, I don't have the time or inclination to put much work into it.

There's no policy that I've seen either way (and I don't think that this is the kind of thing that a policy should deal with - although a guideline might be useful). I'm not sure that having just one of this type of category is useful: it's the kind of category that is only useful when it's one of many similar ones. I'm not sure it's really worth arguing about, though: I'm happy for you to restore it if you feel strongly about it (and will even help re-populate it if you do), although I'm not sure it's really worth having here right now.

>I'm not actually sure about whether they count as "radio telescopes"
I'm not a subject matter expert but:

Wikipedia says that "A radio telescope is a form of directional radio antenna ... The same types of antennas are also used in tracking and collecting data from satellites and space probes."
If I bought an optical telescope and used it to watch semaphore messages from a distant person (instead of looking the moon, planets, stars) would it stop being a telescope? I think if the device "aids in the observation of remote objects" it's still a telescope - even if those remote objects are satellites instead of stars.

Thanks for this - what you say is true and worth thinking about. I guess there needs to be some sort of a distinction made here that's based on how the instrument is used, rather than whether it's a telescope or not, although I'm not entirely sure how that would look like...

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you reply! Mike Peel (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons bleatings ...

.

--Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Brian McNeil: happy holidays to you! Mike Peel (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna O-1A Bird Dog.jpg

Thank you for the feedback - I didn't want to change the file name itself, but you did - now all is good.

Happy holidays!

--Uli Elch (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Uli Elch: thanks for categorising the image! It made the typo easy to spot and fix. Happy holidays! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good trick! --Uli Elch (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo "Rufford Old Hall"

Dear Sir,

I write a book for children aged about 10 years. My intention is to introduce the most important and most interesting species of trees in Serbia (among other things matter, protected trees etc.).

Tisa is a protected in Serbia, but also a most important species for topiary.Topiary trees are not very frequent in Serbija, so I would like to use your photo, if you agree. The photo is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rufford_Old_Hall_14.jpg

I have not found a publisher, but I hope to succeed, which you will be informed.

I am landscape designer, and I work in Belgrade CitY Library.

Sincerely yours Milica Buha

Thanks for the message, Milica! I've replied by email. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engravings, Southwark

Hello, I am a journalist at Norway's major newspaper, Aftenposten. We would like to use this photo: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Southwark_engraving_about_the_River_Thames_frost_fairs_1.jpg?uselang=nb in a story about the cold winters and the frost fairs in London. It will be published both on paper and online, I will of course email you the online version. Kind regards, Wenche Willoch www.aftenposten.no

Thanks! Have replied by Twitter. Mike Peel (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to WP-user-page

in your 'commons' user page you wrote

Deutsch: Sehen Sie bitte meine englische Wikipedia seite. Danke.

Better:

Deutsch: Sehen Sie bitte meine englische Wikipedia-Seite. Danke.

Bye, H.Albatros 20:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to let you know that we are using your image (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cyrus_Cylinder.jpg) on our brand new website offering Bible Courses, you can see it at: www.hopechannel.com. Thank you so much for being willing to share your photo! :)

Copyright status: File:Santa Maria dei Teatini (Ferrara).jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Santa Maria dei Teatini (Ferrara).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sisley, Boats on the Sienne, Courtauld Gallery.jpg

Hi, I verfied the painting, it is the Seine, not the Sienne. I suggest to request renaming it File:Sisley, Boats on the Seine, Courtauld Gallery.jpg. Best wishes, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, thanks for verifying the painting and catching that mistake! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! I was wondering about Seine/Sienne, and could verify in an excellent book where this painting is described. There are many others by Sisley of this area, one of which is only black and white in a book by François Daulte : La Seine au point- du-jour, le quatorze juillet. It is stated it was in an exhibition by Richard Nathanson : "London. June Exhibitions and a Recent Film - JStor" www.jstor.org/stable/880465 "But besides several pedestrian works there are some notable ones: La Seine au point- du-jour, le quatorze juillet, (D.85; Fig.57) ". There is a website about Richard Nathanson, but this painting is not there. I did not find it either on wikiart.org. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo17earth white.jpg

File:Apollo17earth white.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 ∙ +/−

Jc pag 2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikimedia Commons 12:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used your photo

Hi Mike,

I'm using your image of the Great Escarpment, South Africa (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Escarpment,_South_Africa_1.jpg) in an educational book I am writing. It is going in the sidebar in a unit about South African geography. The project is called Layers of Learning, which you can look up online. The volume the image will appear in is Unit 3-20. Once it's released I'd be happy to send you a pdf of the unit if you're interested in seeing it. Thanks for sharing the photo.

-Michelle Copher

Hi @Michelle Copher: thanks for letting me know, that's absolutely fantastic! It would be great to see a PDF of it when it's released. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Throne of Weapons

Dear Sir, We have used your photo https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Throne_of_Weapons%2C_British_Museum.jpg/600px-Throne_of_Weapons%2C_British_Museum.jpg on this page of ours http://www.schule-bw.de/unterricht/faecher/englisch/mat-med/hv/10awh-bbc/11tow/ to good effect, we hope. Thank you very much indeed. Kind regards Fred

That's great, thanks for letting me know! Mike Peel (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated scripts

Hi Mike Peel. I edited your common.js to update you to the latest version of TemplateScript. You were using a much older version called regex menu framework, so you should notice a lot of improvements. A few of the big changes:

	regex menu framework	TemplateScript
regex editor	✓	✓ an improved regex editor which can save your patterns for later use
compatibility	unknown	✓ compatible with all skins and modern browsers
custom scripts	limited	✓ much better framework for writing scripts
supported views	edit	✓ add templates and scripts for any view (edit, block, protect, etc)
keyboard shortcuts	✘	✓ add keyboard shortcuts for your templates and scripts
translatable	✘	✓

Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what just happened here, with @WJBscribe: deleting the talk page... Since I'm not using these regex's any more (I used them when I was transitioning from included to substitute information templates), I've removed them from my javascript page. Thanks @Pathoschild: anyway! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pathoschild's edit to the talkpage was made in error, which is why he then tagged it for speedy deletion (his being the only edits). WJBscribe (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Domes in Cornwall

Hi Mike. I have finally got round to sorting Category:Domes in Cornwall. Hope this now looks OK to you. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skinsmoke: Nice - it looks good to me! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say hi

Hi Mike, we seem to be traveling in the same circles here: you uploading pictures and me trying to improve the categories. Nice to hear from you from time to time. --Judithcomm (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judith. Thanks for all the work you do here categorising images! I try my best to categorise the photos when I upload them, and I greatly enjoy seeing the improvements in their categorisation over time. :-) We definitely travel in the same circles - I'm currently catching up on my watchlist, and as well as the Weston-super-Mare photo, I see you've also improved the categorisation of my photos of Lacock, Lyme Park, Griffith Observatory, and more! Many thanks again, I really appreciate the edits you make! :-) Mike Peel (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for uploading! I wouldn't have recognised the Tudor courtyard of Lacock Abbey as a film location if you hadn't uploaded so many pictures. --Judithcomm (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNESCO archive image

Hi Mike

Thanks very much for creating Template:UNESCO archive image, I'm not good enough with templates to make the changes I need, could you point me towards instructions that would help? It seems like all the information is stored in another template but I can't work it out. I want to change the text within the template, the hidden category it produces and change the image used.

Cheers

John Cummings (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @John Cummings, what are you trying to do? If you want to change the wording, then try visiting Template:UNESCO archive image/i18n and click on "Translate this page". If you want to change the layout, then have a look at Template:UNESCO archive image/layout. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Peel: I'm trying to create hidden categories for all the content from UNESCO, split in to categories for images, audio, video and publications for metrics purposes. I'm guessing the easiest way to keep the files consistently in these categories is to create 4 templates, one for each? I would also very much like to be able to link back to a specific URL within the template for each image, in the same way the British Library images do.John Cummings (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings Rather than creating 4 templates, it might be easier to send a parameter to the template saying which type it is, and categorise based on that. (Or it might be possible to identify the file extension and categorise based on that, but I haven't seen an example of that approach in action.) If you can create the categories, I can add a parameter to the template to point to them.

With the British Library template, which one are you referring to? If you mean Institution:British Library, then that's a completely different style of template than this one, and it would involve creating a new template rather than modifying this one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel:

Thanks very much for your response

The template being able to detect the type of media would be very nice but I think that adding a parameter would be better as there may be different kinds of content using the same file format e.g photographs and illustrations.

Sorry for not being clear about the template, I meant this one Template:British_Library_image, where you can include a link back the original URL. I'd like to use this image instead. Would it be possible to use the different language versions of the logo (different image files) with different language translations of the template?

I've created the following categories

Videos produced by UNESCO
Images produced by UNESCO

In future I will also be uploading files to the following categories which I haven't created yet because there's nothing to put in them.

Audio produced by UNESCO
Graphics produced by UNESCO

Do I need to create these extra categories before you can create the template?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: OK, after looking into this some more, I think the best approach is to have a new template that does all of this in the same style as the BL template. So I've created {{UNESCO archive}}, which uses the new image, and has a "type" parameter that categorises the file into the appropriate directory - see the documentation for the new template. It also has the URL parameter option. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure that I've set this up in the optimal way to make use of the translation tools here, but this approach does match what the BL template uses.

I've added the template to a couple of pages to see how it looks like: see File:Archaelogical site of Hatra (before destruction).webm and File:(2011 Education for All Global Monitoring Report) - A schoolboy in Florida (Valle), in Colombia.jpg. I think it's working OK. Do you want to roll it out to the rest of the UNESCO files? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Peel:

This is wonderful, thanks so much, so pleased to have the different language images as well.Yes please roll it out to the rest of the files :) Would it be easy to add the template to the source field in the information template? My only request is that you change the link on the template to the UNESCO website, unesco.org (this then automatically takes you though to your browsers language version website and adds the language code at the start of the url e.g en.unesco.org).

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: OK, all done, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: , wonderful, thanks very much, did you use autowikibrowser or some other automated tool to change the templates? John Cummings (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I used Help:VisualFileChange.js. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: , great, thanks, I'll give it a go. I've just noticed the link back to the source file in the template, looks really nice :) John Cummings (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 10.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 10.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 11.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 11.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 9.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 9.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 13.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 13.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 2.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Mpaa (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 3.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 3.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 4.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 4.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 5.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 5.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 8.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 8.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 9.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 9.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 6.jpg

File:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder, Illustration 6.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 ∙ +/−

Mpaa (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benin Bronzes

Mike, I was hoping to use three photos of yours for an item we're running on the Benin Bronzes in Modern Casting magazine. I will attribute as you requested.

If you have any questions, please contact me at <redacted>.

Thank you, Nicholas Leider Associate Editor American Foundry Society/Modern Casting

Thanks, I'll reply by email! Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNESCO archive external link

Hi Mike

I've just noticed the external link field on Template:UNESCO archive doesn't work, it just goes back the the UNESCO homepage no matter what url is added, is it hard to fix?

Cheers

John Cummings (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: You need to prefix the url with "url=", e.g. see [1]. Then it appears as a second line/link (the first link to the UNESCO homepage remains the same). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I see, thanks Mike, one more request, please could you change the type=image to type=photograph? image is too vague and can include some of the other options, sorry, I should have planned it better. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I've added 'photograph' as a type. Should 'image' just be removed, or should this point towards 'photograph' by default? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks very much, I think image should be removed because its overlaps all the content categories that isn't video or audio. Would it be possible to add a option for illustrations as well? Sorry, its a bit of an embarrassment of riches in terms of types of content. I will learn how to use the mass update tool you suggested to fix all the links over the next few days. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 'illustration' - it's quite easy to add extra parameters like this to the template, see [2]. I've also removed 'image' - but note that this change has moved files from Category:Images produced by UNESCO to Category:Content produced by UNESCO until they're tagged as photographs/illustrations. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, sorry to miss this message before, thanks very much, very glad you've shown me how to add new parameters myself. Also good to have a category where files go to when they have wonky or missing parameters, I've updated the template documentation to reflect the new parameters. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, sorry to bother you again, would there be an easy way to include two source urls? For World Heritage Site images we want to include a link to both the source photo and a URL link to the World Heritage Site page. --John Cummings (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: In those cases, it might be best to use both the UNESCO archive template, and {{World Heritage Site}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks very much John Cummings (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

And a happy new year to you too! ;-) --Judithcomm (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year! :-) Mike Peel (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inacity Manchester.jpg

File:Inacity Manchester.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 ∙ +/−

Ytoyoda (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lovers Legends - The Gay Greek Myths.pdf

Thanks..

I've left a list of the authors image pages, on the talk page, Although you seem to have realised these were acceptable when redacting, Although some of the earlier ones might need reinstating :(

I've also tried to list the images which have KNOWN/ UNKNOWN Status. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: OK, let me know when you have a definitive list of images / pages that need to be removed, and I'll run through it again. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:169406main pia09190-330.jpg

File:169406main pia09190-330.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 ∙ +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of your photography in a book about architecture

Dera Mister Pell,

I'm working for a french publisher specialized in architecture. We're about to publish a book about how to conceive a project in architecture and we'd like to use the picture of the high line that you took. The book will be sold in France for the most part and we didn't planed to traduce it in any languages. We'd like to have your authorization for using this picture. You're name will be quote at the end of the book as specified by the Crzative Common. W We look forward to hearing for you,

Sincerely,

-- Edith Daurenjou

(Editions de l'Espérou)194.199.210.251 10:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC) March 11 2016[reply]

Dear Edith, thanks for the message, I'm very glad to hear that you want to use one of my photos in this way! Please could you let me know exactly which photo you want to use, and how you will provide attribution and the license information? If it would be easier to talk by email or otherwise, then please find my contact details at http://www.mikepeel.net/contact/ . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of Royal Society Accounts signed by John Hoskyns 2nd Bt

Dear Mike, As a descendant of Sir John Hoskyns I would like to use your photograph to add to my entry for him in the Hoskyns family tree which I currently have saved with ancestry.co.uk. Of course you will be attributed as the photographer. I hope this will be ok? Yours Janet Hoskyns

Hi Janet, thanks for the message. I'm delighted to hear that you want to use the image for your family tree. I've released the image into the public domain, so please feel free to use it as you want. If you can attribute me as the photographer, that's even better. :-) As an aside, I don't suppose you have any of his works that you might be willing to share a scan of here on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons to further illustrate the article on Sir John Hoskyns? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lufthansa 747 over Frankfurt.jpg

File:Lufthansa 747 over Frankfurt.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 ∙ +/−

PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo permission

Mr. Pell, I'm working for a french publisher in architecture. We'd like to use one of your picture (this one :https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:High_Line,_New_York_2012_59.jpg?uselang=fr) to illustrate one of our book. If you agree, could you please write me an e mail a this adress so we can discuss the details. Sincerely, Edith Daurenjou

I've replied by email. Thanks for getting in touch! Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farleigh Hungerford Castle

Thanks! I wanted to congratulate you (but somehow couldn't link to you from the file) on your photos of the above, very useful indeed for those of us interested in heraldry. Have had much fun with them researching for file descriptions and for evidence in designing my own - now impeccably sourced - image of the Hungerford arms!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I'm glad to hear you've found them useful. :-) Thanks for adding/expanding the descriptions! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for picture use

Hello Mike I plan to make a paper for a french scientific magazine, "astrosurf magazine". The subject will be the observation campaign of the variable SS Cyg made by myself and others via the AAVSO but also the Swift satellite and the eMerlin system. To illustrate this paper I wolud be very happy if I can add some pictures from your base such as : - Defford Radio Telescope, part of eMerlin - Model of the Swift satellite. I plan to add the following text license : Photograph by Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net). Is that enough ?

Another question, did you get any information about the first results of this campaign? I got no news yet.

Thank you for your help, much appreciated.

Kind Regards Michel Deconinck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquarellia (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch - I've replied by email. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkana Boy photo on wikimedia

Hi Mike, Great photo. I plan to use it in my eBook on human evolution, by SUNY Open Access: "The history of our tribe: hominini". Thanks for the open use! Barb Welker Ph.D. SUNY Geneseo

Hi Barb. That's great, thanks for letting me know! Please let me know the details of your book once it's published. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata fed infoboxes

Hi Mike

Really nice to chat at Wikimania, as I mentioned I am working with Nav Evans to import some UNESCO data into Wikidata, the completed data sets are World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves (identified on Wikidata by Member of: Man and the Biosphere Programme), more are currently being processed in Mix n' Match. It would be really nice to get some Wikidata fed infoboxes for these, especially the Biosphere Reserves as UNESCO has released the descriptions under a Wikipedia compatible license so people are creating new articles from them.

Also Magnus imported all the Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings into Wikidata, I have been in contact with Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Buildings, Architecture and Monasticism (suggested by User:RexxS and one of the two people listed on the Wikiproject page said he would be happy for them to be added. As I mentioned there are a lot of churches (even Grade I) that have no infobox at all.

I'm very happy to do any leg work that may be needed to get this done.

Cheers

--John Cummings (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.s you also mentioned that it would be easy to learn how to do this myself, are there any instructions anywhere? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @John Cummings: It is fairly straightforward to enable wikidata in an infobox yourself, see the instructions at en:Module:Wikidata, and practical examples at en:Template:Infobox telescope. The technical side of this is now relatively easy, the more time-consuming aspect is the work needed to identify the Wikidata properties that match up with the infobox parameters (or propose new ones), and to move the content over from infoboxes to Wikidata (it sounds like you have a headstart here though).

If you can identify an infobox or two that would be helpful to you to be wikidata-enabled, then let me know which ones and I'd be happy to start converting them over. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike, I would like to do the infoboxes for Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage sites and religious buildings. I'm just waiting to hear back from people from Wikiproject World Heritage and then I'll plan out the fields. Thanks again --John Cummings (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. There's a table at Infobox Telescope that links parameters to wikidata entries, that might be a good place to start with planning out fields (copy/paste/update with parameter list/look for options). Let me know if you want any help / feedback! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike

I haven't heard anything back from Wikiproject World Heritage, I think it not very active, I'm not convinced I will get a reply, to keep this moving here are the changes I think should be made:

Year should be split into two field from Wikidata

inception date (the date the site was created, maybe inception date isn't the correct name though)
World Heritage inscription date (the date the site became a World Heritage site)

Also I think Region is very ambiguous, perhaps Country would be better?

Expand a field called Criteria to match the Wikidata field 'World Heritage criteria (2005)' (the criteria under which the site was given world heritage, there are 10 criteria and more than one criteria is often applicable to a site, I think it would be sensible to link to this)

I'm unsure what to do with the World Heritage ID number field, there are links on Wikdata to the World Heritage page but I don't know if this would be ok in an infobox

Is this clear or should I map it all out matching the existing fields in the template to Wikidata properties?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I've made a start at en:Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata - see en:Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City for an example of it in action. There are a number of parameters that I'm not sure are on Wikidata yet. Have a look, see what you think, and perhaps we should continue this discussion at en:Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site? (I'll ping you there). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: wonderful :), yes lets do it there. --John Cummings (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yorkshire Museum - historic library 4.jpg

Hi Mike

you can't claim copyright on a piece of work which you didn't create. The Author is Willam Smith and the license should be {{PD-old}}. cheers, Amada44 ^{talk to me} 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Amada44: You're completely right. I uploaded this photo as part of a batch that I took at the Yorkshire Museum, but forgot to correct the license template for this one to PD. It's now fixed. Thanks for catching it! Mike Peel (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cat removals

Hi, I haven't understood this edit done on multiple files? I'd expect rather a replacement than just a removal if you believe that the cat was not correct. Best, Poc o² 19:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Poco a poco: The images are already in Category:Atacama Large Millimeter Array, and Category:Radio telescopes is a parent category for that one (via Category:Radio interferometers). I would have done a replacement with the ALMA category were they not already in that category. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood, but I believe that the mother category is not correct. ALMA is the term for the whole site: buildings, transportation systems, antennas...so we'd need something like Antennas of the ALMA. I believe. Poc o² 19:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - the distinction usually used there is 'observatory' vs. 'telescope'. How does Category:Atacama Large Millimeter Array telescopes sound to you? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: I've now created that category (we can move it to a different name later if needed), and started populating it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting it done, Mike. It looks good! :) Poc o² 07:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"St Thomas' Church, Guildford"

I am trying to categorise File:St. Thomas, Church of England, Guildford.jpg, which you donated a few years ago. I have failed to find a St Thomas' church in Guildford, in either the Church of England or any other denomination. Please may I have either a street address, postcode or other means of location for this building so that I can check it on the National Heritage List for England? Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Motacilla: thanks for the message. Looking back at this, it looks like it's actually en:St Nicolas' Church, Guildford. I'm not sure where the 'Thomas' came from - sorry for the error. I've now moved the photo to File:St. Nicolas, Church of England, Guildford.jpg. Thanks for catching the misnaming! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I suspected something of the sort, but didn't know in which category to look! I've now recategorised the file in Category:St Nicholas' Church, Guildford. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added that category to the Wikidata entry for the church (d:Q7594966) so that the interwikis/project links work. Thanks again for catching the mistake! Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Zaz-diagram.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 may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Zaz-diagram.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellin Beltz: Thanks for the notification, but you should probably notify the original uploader (on enwp) rather than me - I just moved the file over to Commons (quite a while back now). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:30th Infantry Division SSI.svg

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 may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:30th Infantry Division SSI.svg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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!

Jcb (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two Cruck Barns at Tatton Park?

Hi Mike, thanks (as always) for uploading so many photo's. When categorising some of Tatton Park, I discovered two distinct buildings called "cruck barn", one of which is listed as: "Timber-framed with brick infill and thatch roof". To some of the photo's descibed as "cruck barn" this does not apply. The two buildings are right next to each other, though as you can see on the map of the listing and with street view. Are there 2 Cruck Barns? --Judithcomm (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Judithcomm: nice to hear from you! I think I might have mis-labeled my photos here. The building shown in File:Cruck barn, Tatton Old Hall.jpg is just behind the buildings I photo'd - you can just see it to the right in File:Tatton Old Hall Outbuildings - geograph.org.uk - 1494712.jpg. I was assuming that that building was Tatton Old Hall (which is the building I went to the site to try to photograph, but couldn't gain access to), and that the ones in front were the barn(s) (which may just be outbuildings according to the geograph photo's description). I can't seem to access the Historic England website at the moment, so I can't verify that though... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Historic England website is working again, and looking at it the building I photographed is just the outbuildings, and they aren't covered by the listing entries. I've updated the descriptions, and recategorised them accordingly. Thanks for pointing out the error! Mike Peel (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! --Judithcomm (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G-VWOW (aircraft)

Virgin Galactic cat was removed as there are no pictures of a Virgin Galactic aircraft in the G-VWOW cat. As well as that the Virgin Galactic aircraft is USA registered and not G-VWOW. Good if you could remove Virgin Galactic cat again please. Ardfern (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the aircraft is now owned by Virgin Galactic - see en:Cosmic Girl (airplane). Yes it has a new registration, and will presumably look a bit different after its modifications, but it's still the same aircraft underneath. So it makes most sense to me if it's included in the Virgin Galactic category... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bypassduct.gif

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 may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bypassduct.gif, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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!

KDS4444 (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: Why are you notifying me of this? You need to inform the original uploader (on enwp by the looks of things). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Followed up at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Deletion_notifications_are_being_sent_to_the_wrong_user. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alpha Capricorni.jpg

File:Alpha Capricorni.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 ∙ +/−

Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:NGC 7006.jpg

File:NGC 7006.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 ∙ +/−

Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lamp m13 sdssi 1arcsec.png

File:Lamp m13 sdssi 1arcsec.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 ∙ +/−

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I only copied this file over from enwp, I didn't upload it original. Please notify the original uploader to let them know about this - although I can't see who that was as the file has been deleted! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afforest2002.jpg

File:Afforest2002.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 ∙ +/−

Jcb (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb: as per the above file, I only copied this file over from enwp, I didn't upload it original. Please notify the original uploader to let them know about this - although I can't see who that was as the file has been deleted! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message above is an automated notification. Please don't worry about it. Jcb (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know - but it should still be passed on to the person that originally uploaded the file, to let them know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your photo

I've used your photo of an Allan Ramsay painting of Emily, Countess of Kildare to illustrate a blog post about an apology her 12-year-old son wrote to her.

You can see it at http://www.sorrywatch.com/2017/01/09/who-hasnt-dun-a-great-many-things-very-improper/

Thanks for making the image available.

Susan McCarthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatureBeast (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for letting me know! Mike Peel (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your photo

Dear Mr. Peel,

I'm just stopping by to let you know that I made use of one of your photos of the Lachish Reliefs (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lachish_Relief,_British_Museum_7.jpg) in Volume II of a book I am preparing to self-publish, entitled "The Kings: A Harmonized Paraphrase of the Biblical Books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles." I incorporated a section in the back of photos taken from Wikimedia Commons, and have provided attribution as you requested on the photo page. Should you need to get in touch with me about this for any reason, feel free to contact me at <redacted> (since I don't come to Wikimedia Commons more than once or twice a year, usually!). Thanks for making these amazing photos available! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecjmartin: Thanks for letting me know! If you could send me a link to your book after you've finished it, I'd appreciate it. No rush, hence why I've replied here (and blanked your email address as a courtesy against spammers). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: Thanks so much for your interest--and your caution! Both are very much appreciated. My Amazon author page is at https://www.amazon.com/James-Jenkins/e/B00IX97XNC ; you can find a link for both volumes of The Kings there. If you do decide to purchase either volume, might I ask you that when you are through, you send me a message with your overall opinion? I would deeply appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deutsches Historisches Museum 2014-3.jpg

File:Deutsches Historisches Museum 2014-3.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 ∙ +/−

Gnom (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deutsches Historisches Museum 2014-4.jpg

File:Deutsches Historisches Museum 2014-4.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 ∙ +/−

Gnom (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of photo

Hi Mike

I would like to use a photo you have on Wiki Commons. I was just going to reference it as I'm not changing the image in any way but my publisher is a bit of a perfectionist and has asked me to contact you seeking your permission. I intend to use the following image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shakespeare_and_Company#/media/File:Shakespeare_and_Company,_Paris,_2009.jpg

in a book I'm publishing about an event which took place on 10 June 1944 where a total of 642 men, women and children in the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane were killed by soldiers of the 2nd SS Panzer Division.

Hope to hear back from you soon. Cheers Ray — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.37.62.178 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ray, thanks for the message. Is your book about the en:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre? You're welcome to use the image providing you follow the license terms (attribution and noting the license) - please see User:Mike Peel/Reuse for some guidance about doing this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2017 (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 ∙ 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:Universal Studios Hollywood 2012 01.jpg

Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Mike Peel, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 2

Burlington House courtyard

Notification about possible deletion

Category:Radio telescopes in Australia

Seasons bleatings ...

Cessna O-1A Bird Dog.jpg

Photo "Rufford Old Hall"

Engravings, Southwark

Link to WP-user-page

Copyright status: File:Santa Maria dei Teatini (Ferrara).jpg

Used your photo

Throne of Weapons

Updated scripts

Domes in Cornwall

Just to say hi

Template:UNESCO archive image

Benin Bronzes

Template:UNESCO archive external link

Happy New Year!

Publication of your photography in a book about architecture

Photograph of Royal Society Accounts signed by John Hoskyns 2nd Bt

Photo permission

Farleigh Hungerford Castle

Request for picture use

Turkana Boy photo on wikimedia

Wikidata fed infoboxes

Cat removals

"St Thomas' Church, Guildford"

File source is not properly indicated: File:Zaz-diagram.jpg

File source is not properly indicated: File:30th Infantry Division SSI.svg

Two Cruck Barns at Tatton Park?

Category:G-VWOW (aircraft)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bypassduct.gif

Thanks for your photo

Thanks for your photo

Use of photo

Notification about possible deletion

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Navigation menu

Search