User talk:P199/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

OTRS permissions queues

Hello P199. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories in Grez-Doiceau

Hello P199/Archive 2 !

Thank you for your work on organizing the files for the category "Grez-Doiceau".  :-) It really helps.

I took the initiative, however, of moving the subcategory "Stampia, Grez-Doiceau" back from "Nature of Grez-Doiceau" to "Grez-Doiceau". The Stampia is a neighborhood of Grez-Doiceau. The category may host in the future some pictures related to the Stampia but unrelated to nature, for example architectural peculiarities or pictures of events happening there. As a subzone of Grez-Doiceau, I felt it would be better to place it directly in the main Grez-Doiceau category. I also added the category "Nature of Grez-Doiceau" to the files of the Stampia category which pertain to it (that is all but one, the one about the little Chapel at the corner of the Rue de la Sainte du Chêne and the Ancien Tracé du Vicinal).

Have a very nice day ! VerboseDreamer (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I guess the lack of them doesn't allow for an accurate picture of what Grez-Doiceau is. My only concern is that such features would contain private houses. I don't really know whether the Belgian laws allow me to take such pictures. Do you know where I can find information about it? Also, I haven't had much free time lately, I guess it'll have to wait a bit. VerboseDreamer (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much.  :-) I'll try to take general views of squares and streets then. VerboseDreamer (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories - lakes of Quebec

Hello P199 I'm adding a precision for categories when more than one lake of that name exist in the province. For example, There are 14 different "Lac Deschênes" in Quebec. I'm using the "Commission de Toponymie du Québec" website to do this (http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/). --Cephas (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Skinner Bluff

Hi P199 I had a glance at this picture. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Skinner_Bluff.jpg

From looking at it I think it might actually be the Malcolm Bluff if your vantage point is on the south shore of Colpoy's Bay. Its easy to confuse with Skinner's Bluff which is on the south shore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎216.110.239.69 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you for noticing this and bringing it to my attention. (How come I never noticed this myself before?) I will rename the file accordingly. Thanks again. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin worden

Beste P199,

Is het niet wat voor jou om admin te worden? Ik zag dat INC het een tijd terug al gevraagd heeft en toen waren er nog wat twijfels. Ik denk dat je een prima kandidaat bent en als je wilt kan ik je nomineren. En wat betreft de verhitte discussies, er zijn meeeeer dan genoeg niet controversiële adminacties om uit te voeren :). Ik hoop dat je nu we de stap wilt zetten. Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Overigens zijn de knopjes ook een goede hulp bij het dagelijkse onderhoudswerk. Natuur12 (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

P199, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

--Krd 14:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Commiserations on your demotion to janitor Congratulations on becoming an admin! Green Giant (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

А еще дорогой администратор, вас вообще не парит, что данный файл использовался в викиновостях, в отличии от миллионов нигде не используемых File:Афиша Фотовыставки клуба Летний берег.jpg? боле того, он именно в тему статьи. Я вас тоже поздравляю- вы в кругу таких-же... единомышленников. -- Schekinov Alexey Victorovich 21:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov

I am seriously disappointed that you did not even try to understand the arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Modern walk on ancient road.jpg

File:Modern walk on ancient road.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 ∙ +/−

Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Gemeentehuis - Laarne - België.jpg

File:Gemeentehuis - Laarne - België.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 ∙ +/−

Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Cebu City 2.jpg

File:Cebu City 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 ∙ +/−

Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Zederik.svg

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Vera (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate

Yes, thanks, I recently found it out. --Horcrux92 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Larger series?

Please see these two items: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1974._%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%90_Soviet_stamp_Airplane.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1974._%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C_Soviet_stamp_a.jpg

In both cases, the file I requested to be deleted is much worse quality than the replacement image. The subject matter of the replacement image is exactly the same in both cases -- the only difference is that the poor-quality image looks to be a blurry photograph and the good-quality image is properly scanned. In the first case, you closed the deletion request. The worse quality images add absolutely nothing to the archive, and it is per the Wikimedia Commons policy that otherwise identical images of much worse quality should be deleted. Further, I don't understand your comment about the file being "part of a larger series". --Agamemnus (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I see. In a series or not, I would still like it to be deleted because it may come up before the other image in a search, and we don't want people to use blurry poor-quality images when better quality is available, do we? It's not really only a duplicate if the other image is much worse quality. Regarding the coloration, you can see that in these photos the color changes from left to right... it's pretty bad. I don't think I have the stamps myself (haven't checked), but the better-quality image has a much more consistent color and it is in line with what other scans are showing, like https://www.colourbox.com/image/russia-circa-1974-a-stamp-printed-in-ussr-show-the-first-plane-constructed-mozhaiskiy-af-circa-1974-image-6115682. The contrast of the better images may be a tad high though, but it's just down to individual scan settings and the brightness of the room (depending on how well the scanner area is isolated, which is usually not very well for almost all commercial scanners) --Agamemnus (talk)
Well, are you going to delete it or do I need to get hot and bothered about this??? --Agamemnus (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Agamemnus: Sorry, the process is to renominate it. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I categorized that image. --Llorenzi (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:A chemical model of a molecule.jpg

Hi P199. Tell me how this file can be in COM:SCOPE? It does not have any useful description and its quality is way below of what is defined in the manual of style for chemicals. --Leyo 21:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Leyo: any image of a compound chemical is educational, therefore in scope. I have deleted images before where there is no description to make them useful, but in this case, a chemistry expert may be able to determine what it is by looking at the image itself, so a useful description may be added in time. But if there is a better quality version, then we can replace it. Manual of style for chemicals is a WP standard and doesn't apply at Commons. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your opinion. However, isn't it a bit awkward that a novice admin and non-chemist tells to a long-standing admin on Commons and highly active user in WikiProjects Chemistry in de-WP and en-WP how images of chemical structures are to be handled? Concerning the case above: Any chemist can tell that it is a generalized structure of some ruthenium complex (like e.g. this one). The “R” stand for unspecified functional groups, whereas probably only the creator (≠ uploader who does not) knows that the “a1” and “b1” stand for. It is highly unlikely that somebody would extend an article and would need exactly this structural formula. Furthermore, even then, it is quite likely that (s)he wouldn't look for it on Commons. It only takes a few minutes to draw such a structure with the appropriate software (e.g. ChemDraw). All it does is clogging up categories and search results, making it more difficult to find “good ones”. --Leyo 22:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me try to mediate. First of all it doesn't matter who is the "novice admin" and who is not. Secondly we don't know P199 his profession. @Leyo: yes I understand that it is frustrating when bad chemical structures are kept just like I can get frustrated when people keep photographs of species which will never be identified using the "well it can be identified" argument. But sometimes it just happens. No need to be so harsh on P199 :) @P199: I really like your DR-work but Leyo has a valid point. While we keep every blurry image of an insect the chemistry project has actually found a way to deal with bad structural formulas and they usually get deleted. Don't worry about it because you will only find out about those exceptions if you continue to close DR's. Being an admin is a never ending learning process. Natuur12 (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Natuur12 for your comments. Yes, some things you will only learn through experience. Anyway, I see that this image is already re-nominated for deletion... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Two quick notes. First, "any image of a chemical compound is educational" gets out-of-hand pretty quickly. There are about 100 million such different specific chemicals in the literature in addition to however many orders of magnitude more someone could imagine, with between several and several- dozen or -hundred ways to represent each, and however-many exponentially more generic substructures (the "R" ideas). So instead as others have noted, we take a somewhat stricter interpretation of COM:EDUSE that includes identifiably and quality to curate the collection. And second, current consensus on commons is to use the EN.WP and DE.WP chemical-diagram style-guides (which are essentially the same as each other). Those are some of the criteria for high quality and educationally useful in this context. I remember being (and sometimes still am) surprised at some genre-specific details that I don't even know exist until I stumble into them admin'ing on en.wp. Thanks for your work here! DMacks (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful Pages

Hello.Please see here --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atorvastatin model.jpg

I agree with your close based on the nomination reasons. But I think there might be more...how about bogus or spam-intent sourcing? The URL is no such site, and fixing a likely typo in it gets me to a site with a ton of popups, advertising, and only "subscription-only" possible content (I did not try to subscribe). Based on the details in the image, it seems to be taken from some other published source (probably scanned from a journal article), so the ultimate actual source is itself uncertain. If we knew what the actual intent was to illustrate (the ref from which it came), it would be trivial to avoid the irrelevant intermediate sourcing or to recreate it from scratch. DMacks (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See there for other images from this website. --Leyo 23:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Wapen-noordwijk.gif

File:Wapen-noordwijk.gif 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 ∙ +/−

Arch (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Не стоило...

Хочу попросить прощения за недавние оскорбления в ваш адрес. Не смотря на то, что по сути содержания моё мнение на ситуацию в целом не изменилось, стиль подачи был явно недостойный и я им скорее унизил самого себя. Назовём это нервным срывом, ибо в проекте коим по идее должно править фотохудожникам встретить такое было весьма неожиданно и обидно. Наверное вы руководствуетесь чем-то хорошим, но к сожалению я этого пока категорически не приемлю. Возможно наступит время, когда мы и найдем точки соприкосновения. Еще раз извините. --S, AV 00:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Pictures of SaruwatariHaruo97

Could you please STOP deleting photos that has a source and a licensing? UNDESTAND please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanHaeShin10 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 September 2015‎ (UTC)

So does it mean that he can used his own camera to take pictures then upload it without copyright violation? Is that all you mean?

Heya!

When you close something like Commons:Deletion requests/File:DPP logo variation.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:SFP logo variation.png, would it be possible for you to actually fix the license not just say that it could be changed to fix the file? The idea behind DNs is to solve the problems, not just throw the pictures back for someone else to puzzle out sometime in the future! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Done. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hi P199. Finally, I found out what your user name actually stands for. ;-) --Leyo 22:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reaching CST.JPG

Hi, Honestly, I don't understand why you decided to keep this. With this quality and no description, it is completely useless. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yann: True, not a good photo, but it is the only one showing the trainyards at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Xensyria Wiki Piece.png

Hi,

Thanks for closing this deletion request back in July.

Rather than putting File:Xensyria Wiki Piece.png back into use, I (formerly editing as user:xensyria and user:mjgilson: hopefully this is my final username!) created File:Yodin Wiki Piece.svg, and so have listed the original file (File:Xensyria Wiki Piece.png) for deletion again.

I may have messed up the procedure, as the automated deletion request link recommended I get in touch with you as the closing admin, and then just added my new request below the closed discussion (here).

No rush at all, and apologies if I've caused any inconvenience. All the best. ‑‑mjgilsonT 11:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodin (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries. It'll be deleted after the nomination period. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Cheers :) ‑‑YodinT 14:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Las_Pinas_City.jpg

Hi, I am a contributor for an open source flight simulator project named FlightGear and I would like to use your Las Pinas City image to create a texture for the simulator. The problem is that our program is licensed as GPL and therefore we can only have images that have GPL-compatible licenses, such as CC0 and CC-BY-4.0. The problem with CC-BY-SA is that the share alike requirement conflicts with the GPL license. All that said, would you be interested in authorizing the usage of your image in our simulator? We do have a THANKS file in our source code in which you would be credited for it. Thanks for considering it. Regards, Gsagostinho

@Gsagostinho: Yes, I have no problem at all with the usage of this image in FlightGear. If you need anything more than this, let me know. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@P199: Thank you so much! Gsagostinho

multiple files deletion

HI p199 thank you for attention to my files, you deleted 4 of them, but please restore them. you have deleted them without my contest. I truly hope that you have deleted them with good intentions and in mistake. Please next time consider to look at the history of a file before deleting it. The provenance to the files was fully established, explained and cleared to the admin Jameslwoodward in 2011 and since then the files were used in wikicommons for the past 5 years, please check the history of the file. I posses full copyright to the deleted files. Needless to say that with one click you erase hours of work by those who creatively write and contribute to wikipedia since the files were used in articles.

here is your history of deletion:

14:59, 5 November 2015‎ Removing Commons:File:TWhite-Sobieski-Deconstructed-Reality.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by P199 14:59, 5 November 2015‎ Removing Commons:File:Escalator front.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by P199 14:59, 5 November 2015‎ Removing Commons:File:TWhite-Sobieski-ColdForest-2010.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by P199 14:59, 5 November 2015‎ Removing Commons:File:TWhite-Sobieski-NYCSuite.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by P199

copyright STATEMENT above mentioned files are my files, photographs made by me of my contemporary installation artwork staged and photographed in my private studios, I have full copyright of these artworks worldwide, and give these file to Wikimedia commons for free and unlimited use to anyone who is willing to learn contemporary art and art history. There is no one in this world who can claim the copyright to this image except me, Tim White-Sobieski.

Should you have any questions, please contact me directly at tim@white-sobieski.com, and if you need my personal contact included but not limited to my private telephone please send me an email, I will gladly answer all your questions and talk over phone or Skype (and thank you for checking on copyright violations, it can be often an issue, but so far I checked all images of my artworks on Wikimedia are all OK and free for public use) - thank you again, best regards, Tim White-Sobieski.--TimWS (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@TimWS: Hi Tim, these images were deleted because there is no proof that User:Butterbeanne who uploaded them has the permission to do so. Merely granting permission on the file description page or here on my talk page is not enough. An OTRS ticket is needed. Until those requirements have been satisfied, the images won't be undeleted. Moreover the process for undeleting images is at Commons:Undeletion requests. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of photos

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 1tawom

The photos you have selected to be deleted are photos of my family members, living and dead. I do not know how to go about solving what it is you propose, however I do assure you I have legal permission of all the photos and scans of book covers. This system is new to me, and seemingly, complicated, (I would prefer to send an email). I only started on here to correct the misinformation that had already been uploaded. Your help would be greatly appreciated. 1tawom (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@1tawom: Just because the Mowats are family members does not mean that you own the copyright of the photos and bookcovers. The copyright is held by the photographers and artists themselves. If they grant permission, you will need an OTRS ticket, see COM:OTRS. For the old photos, you will need to prove that the copyright has expired, see COM:CRT#Canada. In any case, all photos are readily available on-line, which leads me to believe that you just grabbed them from the internet and you have no rights to them. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WE NEED TO UPDATE THE PHOTO OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICE

Hello again,

I have been trying very hard to contact you so that we can update the photo of The Municipality of Whitestone office here on this Wikipedia page. I have tried to change it myself but since I did not create the page, it will not allow me to make the edit? Can you please email me back at: deputy@whitestone.ca so that we can talk and I can send you an updated photo?

Thanks, Jennifer Wadden Deputy-Clerk / Deputy-Treasurer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.59.69 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 January 2016‎ (UTC)

file:Surrounded By Idiots CD cover.jpg

Hi. Here's permission for file:Surrounded By Idiots CD cover.jpg

I, Rob Trick, have been paid for and given credit for all images used in the completion and promotion of Simon Rakoff's comedy album. I hereby give Simon all privileges regarding the like, consistent with our arrangement for his use of said images. Please allow him to upload his images to your website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uiaeli (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 February 2016‎ (UTC)

@Uiaeli: No point leaving this permission info here. Follow the the instructions in the warning box at the file. It says: "Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org." But more importantly, why is this CD cover uploaded? There is little educational value in it, and seems like promotion, which is out of scope. See COM:SCOPE. Regards. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

acerca de Bonito

Quisiera conocer atractivos turistico-culturales de esta población para visitarla en septiembre de 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.49.77.74 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 21 February 2016‎ (UTC)

File:Gordita en San Juan de Limay.JPG

Dear P166,

Could you please delete the following photography from Wikimedia Commons: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gordita en San Juan de Limay.JPG It was uploaded my mistake. If you want people to contribute photographs to wikipedia, you need to let them correct any mistakes they make, or they will not dare to make any contributions. Also, I think it is common courtesy. Martinogk (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion done. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"Nesterov_derzhinskaya.jpg"

Hello,

What was the issue with the file "Nesterov_derzhinskaya.jpg"? Thank you!

Best regards, Semimartingale (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

File:SADC road sign IN511.svg

Please delete this file too. Thanks. Fry1989 eh? 16:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Train station in Grombach

“ Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent. See Commons:Categories for the exact policy. ”

—Commons:Language policy

“ Category names should generally be in English (...). However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (...). ”

—Commons:Categories

Zwiadowca 21 23:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Don Bennechi

Hi I just recieved

Don Bennechi 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion Don Bennechi 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion

The material is already published at www.donbennechi.com

I have the rights to publish the pictures.

But of some reasons I still do not understand my draft was deleted - and was asumed PR - that was wrong. The reasson of me publishing the artist was the interest around him since so many years, and his discography etc. So since this was made to me, I dont know how to proceed with the article since each attempt, I do, results in deletion. I also had some good advicers "here" at the "teahouse" and still, even tough I follow the advices exactely I get deleted. Maybe someone "here" can help me do the article?

Best regards and thanks in advance, Regina Regina Andersson (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Regina Andersson: For your article on English WP, you must write it in a neutral point-of-view (meaning, sticking to facts, not trying to promote him) and provide reliable independent references to prove that he is indeed famous (so not Facebook, not www.donbennechi.com, not blogs).
As for the pictures: they are clearly professional photo-shoots for promotional purposes. Moreover, the rights to publish remain with the photographer. If you indeed have the rights, you'll need prove that, see COM:OTRS. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, An e-mail has just been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org<permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> with following; Hello,

"As apparently it is a misunderstanding and questioning regarding Regina Andersson, has permission to publish photographs of Don Bennechi we've copyrighted. She is free to publish them on Wikipedia. Please,

Roland Gustavsson /

Venus Recordings Scandinavia"

Furthermore, when I did the draft, I referred to 2 major newspapers in Sweden, which was used as the source. I also referred to Warner Chappell - but also to the website where I found information. I tried in every way to be objective. I could refer to 200-300 different articles written about Bennechi in Scandinavia, Korea and Israel - but it did not. But one of my main sources, Google and YouTube - if it involves to "prove" that it is not about a blog / Facebook "celebrity" Look for example here: https://www.google.se/search?q=google&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=VoFMV72KGqur8wfduIjQCg#q=Don+Bennechi I really need help to make the draft - because whatever and however I try - I get blocked and removed :-( I was accused of engaging in any promotional activities.. I had the opportunity to work with him once, and yes, we belonged to the same production company - and I expressed myself wrongly perhaps initially with the words we - so that you get the notion that "I" is the production company. They told me to change the name - I did, they said, was objective, I was. Since I am a 26 year old Swedish woman - who is an amateur - it can not be helped :-) why it would be so nice if some kind soul can help me with this? Regina Andersson (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Regina Andersson: Your article on English WP was deleted because "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Created by someone working at Bennechi's production company." The problem is that you belong to the same production company, which makes it a conflict of interest, and that is strongly discouraged. I will try to get you unblocked on English WP, but you will have to disclose the conflict of interest. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! But it's not that I actually work there - I was in their "stall" - I am a musician and doing other things too. I am an amateur and dont know how to "perform" here on Wikipedia - but thought it would give a more "weight" to the prospect of an affiliation that is not a fact. The "belong" part was as a musician. I do of course "now" understand that the line "We are the production company for Don Bennechi - we do not represent an organisation - we represent Don" - should have been formulated in a more appropriate way than mine - but this is not my amazing English as you can imagine. There was an error allusion that I think is human - that I now are "condemned" and blocked for that sentence seems unfair.

I have also spoken with the owner of Venus Recordings today and towards them, there is absolutely no conflict of interest on the basis of the article I want to publish.

Can I get to be so "brazen" and ask for help with this article? Or if I can make a new draft with your indulgence? I do not really know how I disclose the conflict of interest? Can you guide me? I really hope for your help. Many thanks again, Regina Regina Andersson (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You will have to request to be unblocked at WP yourself. If you succeed, I would recommend editing other articles first to gain experience. Get familiar first with WP policies (such as references, NPOV, notability requirements, etc.) before trying to recreate the Bennechi article. If you get unblocked, I am willing to assist, just contact me on my talkpage at the English WP. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your preferred mass DR procedure

As a genuine question, I was wondering how you would go about the nomination of hundreds of potentially problematic files from a user who has uploaded thousands of photos, just as a practical matter? Your suggestion of a "speedy close" here makes me think that you believe there is a better way of doing this, and if there is, I'd love to know. I'm not talking about the differences of opinion we seem to have over DM/TOO issues, but: Would you use VFC on the user's uploads? If so, are you aware that they will all go into the same subpage (I do not think you can change the DR subpage that VFC creates)? Would you do a handful at a time, waiting for the closure of the previous DR each time? Storkk (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request: File:Euskal_Herria_euskalkiak2.svg

Hi, P199. You were right, this file was still in use. As I said in Spanish in my request, the lower half of the map has been invented, because there are not any avidences of basque dialects that have been spoken in that area, if there were anytime. So, it is a non scientific map and must be removed. So, I deleted it september the 27 from all the wikis where it was in use. Obviously, I presented my arguments on their respective discussion pages, and half a month after, nobody has said anything against. Could you delete that file, please. Thank you. --Pompilos (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Pompilos: Sorry, I can't just delete it, you'll have to nominate it for deletion again. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I've nominated it for deletion again. --Pompilos (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Timiskaming FN.jpg

File:Timiskaming FN.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 ∙ +/−

69.159.172.146 22:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Simpsons

Hallo and happy holidays. You deleted my files File:Graffiti an der B3 in Butzbach 01.JPG/04.JPG. Due to Category:Graffiti of The Simpsons i thought they where eligible for commons. Was i wrong? -- Cherubino (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello? -- Cherubino (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

dank u! May "Commons:Derivative works/Casebook/Photographs of buildings and artworks in public spaces/Full freedom of panorama/...Germany..." there be valid for my pictures? -- Cherubino (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, P199!

Happy New Year!

P199, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Bronchial tree image up for deletion again

Please comment here. Axl (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ahmad Ahmad94shebli

Hello. what do you mean by "Incomplete nomination"? Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Calgary skyline

Hello, P199! I noticed you recently categorized File:Downtown skyline - panoramio.jpg, an image of Calgary including the very distinctive Peace Bridge, under Downtown Toronto. I’m curious as to why, considering it was tagged & geolocated … but more importantly, if you did the same for any similar images, please go back through and reëvaluate them. (Note that Toronto has no major rivers running through it, just an enormous—unbridgeable—lake to its south.) Thanks!—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem; I’ve had a few ‘cat-too-many’ incidents myself. Just wanted to make sure it wasn‘t the tip of an iceberg, so to speak.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, P199! I owe a lot from you, I consider you not only as mentor but an icon in Photography editing; it is only now that I comprehend, though, small, the philosophy of Categories; it is only here in Commons that my life and photos are protected; in any and all other sites, they can easily delete without notice precious photos; starting from my 3 weeks photography in Pangasinan at Star Plaza Hotel, now, with faster Internet, but slow in other aspects, I value your advices; I have still the difficulty of editing, hence Blurry images uploaded due to stress in eyesight; I therefore ask the indulgence of editors to bear with my mistakes on blurry images, for I am racing against time to finish uploading tons of my treasure photos; now, I take photos only when the sun is so orange to red 1 or 2 hours before sunset; the problem with this is I cannot go far, and take photos of outside Metro Manila; from Bulacan, if I travel far, the Clouds cover my subjects, hence, bear with my repeated photos of beautiful scenery of nearby places; Maraming salamat po at Best of the seasons, and best of luck, sincerely--Judgefloro 10:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Terpinyl acetate sigma aldrich.jpg

Hi P199. Did you consider deleting the image that was just uploaded to illustrate a (resolved/trivial) point in the DR? Even the uploader states: You may delete kopiersperre.png later. --Leyo 21:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo-Channelvthailand-2014.png

I am sure this was supposed to be "Kept: Per discussion". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Image deletions

Hi P199, Sorry to be a pain - Could you undelete these images and close them as Keep please,

I recently nominated more of them - All of which were closed as Keep by 2 different admins - Apparently my reasons weren't valid (I disagree entirely but I'd rather not rant about it but to save future shit with you and I it's probably best they're all undeleted),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Davey2010: I actually agreed with you for these nominations. That's why I deleted them. And at least 2 other admins also deleted some of this set. If the other admins disagree, they can request the undeletion through the official channel. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi P199, Oh ok thanks :), Haha I didn't even realise we had REFUND either, Fancy deleting the other crappy images too ? , Anyway thanks for your help as well as for your backing :), Anyway have a great day, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 13:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blick von der Ponalestrasse gegen Mt.Baldo. (BildID 15514411).jpg

Hi, this photograph needed a 270 deg rotation and perhaps minor lightening. I don't really understand the DR, it's obviously a view towards Mount Baldo as described. Would you consider undeleting for the changes, or is an UNDEL needed? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Same rationale for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Besuch Kaiser Karl in Trient. (bei I.R.47.) (BildID 15515091).jpg. It's a historical photograph of a visit of the Emperor. A minor lightening of the photograph makes it quite useable. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi @Fæ: . Really? The images are of such poor/low quality, making them practically unusable and therefore out of scope. I'm not so sure lightening the image will restore sufficient quality. But if you are willing to try, I will restore them. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Both of these are part of the unique survey of the time, so my feeling is that they should be available on Commons for their historic value. --Fæ (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:South_Ridge_on_22_June_2007.jpg

The DR's are closing without a valid explanation rather than skyline, Where the architectural features are visible and law doesn't permits an FOP. Can you please explain the exception for your keep by claiming "Skyline" - ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Kept

Hi, you decided to keep File:Black September Federal Republic of Germany - Fribourg Constitution Division - Master Habitat Rhine Valley Photography 2013 Cyberwar Utah - panoramio (6).jpg, stating "Photo quality more than adequate; colors, title, description, and category can be modified". Now please tell me: How do you fix overblown colors if the information is already lost through overprocessing? How to fix hundreds or thousands of files from pictures Jettcom with weird, irregular names like this that are being uploaded by Panoramio upload bot? These files are driving many regular users crazy whose categories get flooded with junk like this. --Sitacuisses (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted category

Hi P199, your decision about Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Vyletvraji.cz is based on your mistaken assumption that it is a user category. It is not a user category but item category related to the local company as well as we categorize buses by operator, automobiles or other products by manufacturer, shops by company, plants by genus etc. Independently on the fact who is author of the media. Your mention about my photos and my possible user category has absolutely no relation to the discussed item and category and looks as an out-of-topic attack. I use the same principles of categorization for thousands other photos and items. I really need not to move images of all Commons uploaders to my user category.

Generally every item category "promotes" its item - a category of river can "promote" the river, a category of any street can "promote" the street, a category of an airlines company can "promote" the airlines company etc. However, such a "promotion" is the essence of categorization system. Commons is not a tourism agency to promote his own actions and places and censor all of the "rivals". Commons should have no rivals and no favourites in items. If some train operator will push to delete a category of another train operator as "promotional", we should not be defeated by such private interests. Commons has no own interest in such purposive censorship.

If you wanted to consider which item (which company, subject etc.) is important enough to have its own category on Commons, you should use quite different arguments in the closing comentary. Generally, Commons has not so strict criteria of "importance" as Wikipedia and use rather practical criteria - usefulness of the category depends e.g. on the count of files related to identic item. If we have 6 files related to some regional agency (or transport operator, or manufacturer, or whatever similar), it is useful to group them into category, even though the subject is not important enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Similarly, if somebody uploads 30 images from one event (at one place and the same time), it is useful to group them together, and nobody attacks such a category as "promotional". The 6 photos are of weak quality and poor description, we need not to suppress even the little factual information which we have about them. --ŠJů (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@ŠJů: We are talking here about commercial promotion. A category named after a river or street is not considered promotion in this context, but one named after a non-notable company is, especially if images are only uploaded to showcase the company's products and services. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean, images related to state and municipal companies or subjects should be categorized by item and images related to "commercial" companies should remain unorganized? Do we really need such selective censorship? What about state and municipal enterprises - do you count them to "commercial" sphere, or not? Are castles, chargeable attractions, restaurants, train stations, transport services, factories or shops and shopping centres "commercial" in your view, or not? Do you mean that images related to any "not-notable" subject should be not grouped together? Where you found your criteria of notability for Commons categorization? Do you suppose that they should be identical with notability for a separate Wikipedia article? Not, they are obviously not identical. How you assessed a notability of the affected travel agency, compared to other local subjects in the town of Turnov? And why your Cfd conslusion didn't contain such criteria, arguments and factual assessment, but only absolutely unrelated suggestion about my user gallery, and false accusation? First of all, Commons should not succumb to commercially-motivated censorship efforts. --ŠJů (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Seattle - Frye-Bruhn beef room - 1900.jpg

As the closer of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seattle - Frye-Bruhn beef room - 1900.jpg, do you think this subsequent edit is appropriate? I do not, but as the uploader I hesitate to revert it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Affected:

File:Mariveles spots.jpg And also:

File:Mt Samat Shrine.jpg File:Araw ng Kagitingan.jpg File:GN power.jpg File:An industrial complex in Limay, Bataan.jpg File:Freeport Area of Bataan.jpg File:Hermosa Ecozone and Industrial Park.jpg File:A solar power plant.jpg File:Vistamall Bataan.jpg File:Industrial Complex in Limay.jpg

You just assumed that the pictures are not mine because they can be seen in web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TagaBalanga (talk • contribs)

Decision on Bogus "China Export" mark.

Please review your decision here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Comparison_of_two_used_CE_marks.svg

User https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Amitie_10g (a blocked user) made the claim that "The "China Export" symbol exists as long as the symbol is used in products "Made in China" (and I seen them, and the difference with the CE mark is notorious)." This is nonsense, as all applicable products which are sold in the EU MUST bear CE Marking, including those made in China.

User https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LX made the claim that "It doesn't matter whether the symbol exists as a legitimate mark, as a fraudulent mark, or whether it is a made-up fraud. It's the subject of a parliamentary question and thus relevant in its own right." However, this user ignores the answer to the question he quoted (which is the answer to which I referred in my delete request) which states quite clearly that "The Commission is aware that there exists the misconception attributing CE marking the meaning ‘Chinese export’. The Commission is not aware of the existence of a ‘China export mark’"

The above were the only two objections to the delete request, and neither is valid!

There is no actual evidence that a China Export mark exists, it is a myth, and Wikimedia is not in the business of perpetuating myths! FF-UK (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Commons is a repository for images. It doesn't prescribe how they are supposed to be used. As for this particular image, it compares the official CE mark with a non-compliant version. Such comparison is in scope.
The file is in SVG format. You could just edit it and change "China Export" to "non-compliant mark", or somelike like that. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Panoramio bot operator

I opened a complaint about User:Shizhao and his Panoramio uploads at the Administrators' noticeboard. You are invited to share your personal experience and opinion about this user and his abuse of his bot operator rights. Thanks, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I use a picture from an existing Wiki article for my own article?

Can I use a picture from an existing Wiki article for my own article, if I provide the proper reference to the original file and author. I'm also having some troubles in uploading my own image and it has been deleted several times for 'copyright violations' even though I'm the owner of this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yalu.siva (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • In general, yes, assuming that by "Wiki" you mean "Wikipedia" (other Wikis might contain pretty much anything) and assuming that it isn't one of the few images used in Wikipedia on a fair use basis (e.g. the English-language Wikipedia allows a low-resolution version of a non-free record jacket in an article on the relevant record). If you want a really solid answer, you are going to have to say what image you want to use. - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello P199, 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) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Aloha! I noticed your edit here: [1]. My question: Wouldn't it be better to keep the category of all the Marine protected areas, since that's what the map is all about? Just a thought, not complaining. :-) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Hedwig in Washington: No, not really. It is a map of the world, not of the Ross Sea for instance. That would be no different than categorizing other world maps in the categories of every country. Someone interested in this world map of marine protected areas will not look for it in say Category:Pitcairn Island. And it serves no purpose categorizing it in Category:Pitcairn Island because as a whole the image is not about Pitcairn Island. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I get your point. Thanks for your fast reply! C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:File:Olympic (3828171731).jpg and File:Whale (3828870710).jpg

Actually, I am cleaning up my uploads from Flickers. Thank you for helping me to nominate these two photos. --Coekon (talk)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:- panoramio (1028).jpg

Can you give a link to panoramio file from this DR? /St1995 14:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stas1995: As requested: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/43144092 --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nirengarg Rules

Just let my super original map of Noth America alone, please! TGDtucola (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@TGDtucola: There are other websites for fantasy countries. Commons is not for that. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Really, refining categories??

This is refining categories -> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASunrise_in_village%2C_Swabi_kpk_Pakistan.jpg&type=revision&diff=248365761&oldid=248364115 - Takeaway (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Den hvide mamba

File:VMF 9492.jpg; how can he be the photographer of a picture of himself during a match? TherasTaneel (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That as well. TherasTaneel (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Code issues in User:P199/common.js

Hi P199, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:P199/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 15 character 8942: This character may get silently deleted by one or more browsers. - Evidence: window.vFC_Profiles = {"Bow River":{"editInputs":{"mdDeleteReason":"","mdEditSummary":"refine cat.","mdReplacePermission":false,"mdDeleteHeading":"Files in [[:Category:Canada]] ","mdTalkNote":"Yours sincerely,","mdRRegEx1":true,"mdRVar1":true,"mdMatchText1":"/\\n\\{\\{Check categories.+\\}\\}\\n/","mdReplaceText1":"","mdRRegEx2":true,"mdRVar2":true,"mdMatchText2":"/\\[\\[Category:Banff, Alberta\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText2":"","mdRRegEx3":true,"mdRVar3":true,"mdMatchText3":"/\\[\\[Category:Alberta\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText3":"","mdRRegEx4":true,"mdRVar4":true,"mdMatchText4":"/\\[\\[Category:Banff National Park\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText4":"","mdRRegEx5":true,"mdRVar5":true,"mdMatchText5":"/\\[\\[Category:Bow Falls\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText5":"","mdRRegEx6":true,"mdRVar6":true,"mdMatchText6":"/\\[\\[Category:Canada\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText6":"[[Category:]]\n","mdRRegEx7":true,"mdRVar7":true,"mdMatchText7":"/\\[\\[Category:Heritage\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText7":"","mdRRegEx8":true,"mdRVar8":true,"mdMatchText8":"/\\[\\[Category:Lake Louise\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText8":"","mdRRegEx9":true,"mdRVar9":true,"mdMatchText9":"/\\[\\[Category:Mount Rundle\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText9":"","mdRRegEx10":true,"mdRVar10":true,"mdMatchText10":"/\\[\\[Category:\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText10":"","mdRRegEx11":false,"mdRVar11":true,"mdMatchText11":"","mdReplaceText11":"","selPreserve":"secure","alsoPreserve":""},"action":"c_replace","objectMembers":{"queryParams":{"target":"Category:Canada","cmdir":"asc","cmsort":"sortkey","cmstartsortkey":"","cmcontinue":"file|4d45452d51414e202d2053414c4953482053544f4e4553204d41524b494e4720494d504f5254414e5420534954452e20494e464f20494e2050414e4f52414d494f204445534352495054494f4e202d2050414e4f52414d494f2e4a5047|54918401"},"startInput":{"mode":"Category","modeCat":true,"modeUser":false,"modePage":false,"modeSearch":false,"target":"Category:Canada","loadThumbs":true,"loadWikitext":true,"startDate":"","startFile":""}},"proceedAt":{"vals":["file|4c554d4945524520445520534f495220455420434f5041494e204c45205348494820545a55202d2050414e4f52414d494f2e4a5047|56576962","file|4d45452d51414e202d2053414c4953482053544f4e4553204d41524b494e4720494d504f5254414e5420534954452e20494e464f20494e2050414e4f52414d494f204445534352495054494f4e202d2050414e4f52414d494f2e4a5047|54918401"],"setVals":["cmcontinue"]},"time":"2017-03-21T17:00:25.673Z"},"Sherbrooke":{"editInputs":{"mdDeleteReason":"","mdEditSummary":"refine cat.","mdReplacePermission":false,"mdDeleteHeading":"Files in [[:Category:Canada]] ","mdTalkNote":"Yours sincerely,","mdRRegEx1":true,"mdRVar1":true,"mdMatchText1":"/\\n\\{\\{Check categories.+\\}\\}\\n/","mdReplaceText1":"","mdRRegEx2":true,"mdRVar2":true,"mdMatchText2":"/\\[\\[Category:Sherbrooke, Quebec\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText2":"\n","mdRRegEx3":true,"mdRVar3":true,"mdMatchText3":"/\\[\\[Category:Canada\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText3":"[[Category:Relais Saint-François]]\n","mdRRegEx4":true,"mdRVar4":true,"mdMatchText4":"/\\[\\[Category:Printemps\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText4":"","mdRRegEx5":true,"mdRVar5":true,"mdMatchText5":"/\\[\\[Category:Ancestors\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText5":"","mdRRegEx6":true,"mdRVar6":true,"mdMatchText6":"/\\[\\[Category:Old\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText6":"","mdRRegEx7":true,"mdRVar7":true,"mdMatchText7":"/\\[\\[Category:Old buildings\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText7":"","mdRRegEx8":true,"mdRVar8":true,"mdMatchText8":"/\\[\\[Category:Country roads\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText8":"","mdRRegEx9":true,"mdRVar9":true,"mdMatchText9":"/\\[\\[Category:Memories\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText9":"","mdRRegEx10":true,"mdRVar10":true,"mdMatchText10":"/\\[\\[Category:Souvenirs\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText10":"","mdRRegEx11":true,"mdRVar11":true,"mdMatchText11":"/\\[\\[Category:Traditions\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText11":"","mdRRegEx12":true,"mdRVar12":true,"mdMatchText12":"/\\[\\[Category:Routes\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText12":"","mdRRegEx13":true,"mdRVar13":true,"mdMatchText13":"/\\[\\[Category:Exploration\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText13":"","mdRRegEx14":true,"mdRVar14":true,"mdMatchText14":"/\\[\\[Category:Villes\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText14":"","mdRRegEx15":true,"mdRVar15":true,"mdMatchText15":"/\\[\\[Category:Centers (organization)\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText15":"","mdRRegEx16":true,"mdRVar16":true,"mdMatchText16":"/\\[\\[Category:Nostalgia\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText16":"","mdRRegEx17":true,"mdRVar17":true,"mdMatchText17":"/\\[\\[Category:Cold\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText17":"","mdRRegEx18":true,"mdRVar18":true,"mdMatchText18":"/\\[\\[Category:Light\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText18":"","mdRRegEx19":true,"mdRVar19":true,"mdMatchText19":"/\\[\\[Category:Constructions\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText19":"","mdRRegEx20":true,"mdRVar20":true,"mdMatchText20":"/\\[\\[Category:Freezing\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText20":"","mdRRegEx21":false,"mdRVar21":true,"mdMatchText21":"","mdReplaceText21":"","selPreserve":"secure","alsoPreserve":""},"action":"c_replace","objectMembers":{"queryParams":{"target":"relais saint francois incategory:Canada","sroffset":30},"startInput":{"mode":"Search","modeCat":false,"modeUser":false,"modePage":false,"modeSearch":true,"target":"relais saint francois incategory:Canada","loadThumbs":true,"loadWikitext":true,"startDate":"","startFile":""}},"proceedAt":{"vals":[30],"setVals":["sroffset"]},"time":"2017-04-10T15:37:01.668Z"},"Philippines":{"editInputs":{"mdDeleteReason":"","mdEditSummary":"refine cat.","mdReplacePermission":false,"mdDeleteHeading":"Files in [[:Category:Canada]] ","mdTalkNote":"Yours sincerely,","mdRRegEx1":true,"mdRVar1":true,"mdMatchText1":"/\\n\\{\\{Check categories.+\\}\\}\\n/","mdReplaceText1":"","mdRRegEx2":true,"mdRVar2":true,"mdMatchText2":"/\\[\\[Category:Philippines\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText2":"[[Category:]]\n","mdRRegEx3":true,"mdRVar3":true,"mdMatchText3":"/\\[\\[Category:Central Luzon\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText3":"","mdRRegEx4":true,"mdRVar4":true,"mdMatchText4":"/\\[\\[Category:Bulacan\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText4":"","mdRRegEx5":true,"mdRVar5":true,"mdMatchText5":"/\\[\\[Category:Mindanao\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText5":"","mdRRegEx6":true,"mdRVar6":true,"mdMatchText6":"/\\[\\[Category:\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText6":"","mdRRegEx7":true,"mdRVar7":true,"mdMatchText7":"","mdReplaceText7":"","mdRRegEx8":true,"mdRVar8":true,"mdMatchText8":"","mdReplaceText8":"","mdRRegEx9":false,"mdRVar9":true,"mdMatchText9":"","mdReplaceText9":"","selPreserve":"secure","alsoPreserve":""},"action":"c_replace","objectMembers":{"queryParams":{"target":"Category:Philippines","cmdir":"asc","cmsort":"sortkey","cmstartsortkey":"","cmcontinue":"file|53542e205041554c20434f4c4c454745204f4620424f43415545202d2050414e4f52414d494f202835292e4a5047|57286721"},"startInput":{"mode":"Category","modeCat":true,"modeUser":false,"modePage":false,"modeSearch":false,"target":"Category:Philippines","loadThumbs":true,"loadWikitext":true,"startDate":"","startFile":""}},"proceedAt":{"vals":["file|53542e205041554c20434f4c4c454745204f4620424f43415545202d2050414e4f52414d494f202835292e4a5047|57286721"],"setVals":["cmcontinue"]},"time":"2017-03-22T13:38:53.646Z"},"blank":{"editInputs":{"mdDeleteReason":"","mdEditSummary":"","mdReplacePermission":false,"mdDeleteHeading":"Files in [[:Category:Canada]] ","mdTalkNote":"Yours sincerely,","mdRRegEx1":true,"mdRVar1":true,"mdMatchText1":"/\\n\\{\\{Check categories.+\\}\\}\\n/","mdReplaceText1":"","mdRRegEx2":true,"mdRVar2":true,"mdMatchText2":"/\\[\\[Category:\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText2":"[[Category:]]\n","mdRRegEx3":false,"mdRVar3":true,"mdMatchText3":"","mdReplaceText3":"","selPreserve":"secure","alsoPreserve":""},"action":"c_replace","objectMembers":{"queryParams":{"target":"Category:Canada","cmdir":"asc","cmsort":"sortkey","cmstartsortkey":"","cmcontinue":"file|e78fade5a4abe59c8be5aeb6e585ace59c92e585a5e58fa320454e5452414e4345204f462042414e4646204e4154494f4e414c205041524b202d2050414e4f52414d494f2e4a5047|57872413"},"startInput":{"mode":"Category","modeCat":true,"modeUser":false,"modePage":false,"modeSearch":false,"target":"Category:Canada","loadThumbs":true,"loadWikitext":true,"startDate":"","startFile":""}},"proceedAt":{"vals":["file|59525420425553205e3835204f4e2031365448204156454e554520415420594f524b544f4e202d2050414e4f52414d494f2e4a5047|54536752","file|e78fade5a4abe59c8be5aeb6e585ace59c92e585a5e58fa320454e5452414e4345204f462042414e4646204e4154494f4e414c205041524b202d2050414e4f52414d494f2e4a5047|57872413"],"setVals":["cmcontinue"]},"time":"2017-05-23T18:07:46.930Z"},"Panoramio":{"editInputs":{"mdDeleteReason":"","mdEditSummary":"","mdReplacePermission":false,"mdDeleteHeading":"Files in [[:Category:Canada]] ","mdTalkNote":"Yours sincerely,","mdRRegEx1":true,"mdRVar1":true,"mdMatchText1":"/\\n\\{\\{Check categories.+\\}\\}\\n/","mdReplaceText1":"","mdRRegEx2":true,"mdRVar2":true,"mdMatchText2":"/\\[\\[Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories as of .+\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText2":"","mdRRegEx3":true,"mdRVar3":true,"mdMatchText3":"/\\[\\[Category:Photos from Panoramio ID \\d\\d\\d\\d\\d\\d\\d‎ needing categories\\]\\]\\n/","mdReplaceText3":"","mdRRegEx4":false,"mdRVar4":true,"mdMatchText4":"","mdReplaceText4":"","selPreserve":"secure","alsoPreserve":""},"action":"c_replace","objectMembers":{"queryParams":{"target":"Category:Canada","cmdir":"asc","cmsort":"sortkey","cmstartsortkey":"","cmcontinue":"file|4d4f4e545245414c2e5155454245432c43414e4144412e202d2050414e4f52414d494f202831292e4a5047|53188969"},"startInput":{"mode":"Category","modeCat":true,"modeUser":false,"modePage":false,"modeSearch":false,"target":"Category:Canada","loadThumbs":true,"loadWikitext":true,"startDate":"","startFile":""}},"proceedAt":{"vals":["file|4b494c4c41524e45592c2056414e434f555645522c2042432c2043414e414441202d2050414e4f52414d494f2e4a5047|54808013","file|4d4f4e545245414c2e5155454245432c43414e4144412e202d2050414e4f52414d494f202831292e4a5047|53188969"],"setVals":["cmcontinue"]},"time":"2017-07-10T15:10:40.284Z"}};

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC).

Dutton_ON.JPG

Hallo P199, ik zag je revert. Betekent dit dat in principe nummerplaten zichtbaar bij het inzoomen wél kunnen? Lotje (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hallo @Lotje: . Nou, ik zou zeggen als het zichtbaar is zonder inzoomen. Het moet een redelijk zichtbaar deel van de foto zijn, niet zo terloops of bijkomstig. Je moet ergens de grens trekken, anders kan je wel honderden kategorieen bij elke foto doen. En nog wat: de nummerplaten in mijn foto zijn niet eens Amerikaans, maar Canadees! Groetjes. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, fijn bedankt. Ik zal er rekening mee houden. Lotje (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hallo P199, bedoel je dit met een grens trekken?. Zou jij de file hernoemen? De fotograaf was misschien de kleinzoon of kleindochter van Enrique Rubio, wie weet! Lotje (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje: Ja inderdaad. Nee, ik zou het niet hernoemen. Het is inderdaad niet de beste file naam maar geen van de 6 criteria past, zie COM:Rename. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Bedankt P199. Nog 1 vraagje en dan laat ik je verder met rust: zou je deze hernoemen naar "P199 Battle of Schellenberg"? Lotje (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje: . Ja, omdat het een spelling fout is: criteria #3 van COM:Rename. En helemaal geen probleem om me iets te vragen, kan je altijd doen. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Fijn bedankt P199 Lotje (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion question

Greetings: The images you asked about at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PuppyPatcha were removed for probable copyright violation as there is no indication the uploader has rights, and other indications were found which showed they probably didn't. Deletion Nominations customarily stay up a week except in cases of copyright violation and other issues as decided by the closing admin. Thank you for asking! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: How did you conclude that there is a copyright violation? What proof do you need? You yourself use "probable" and "probably" when you say, "...were removed for probable copyright violation as there is no indication the uploader has rights, and other indications were found which showed they probably didn't." PuppyPatcha (talk)

Each image is discussed at its own deletion nomination, start there for understanding. Then read COM:L. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't done any violation of copy right

I haven't done any violation of copy right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashid Ashraf (talk • contribs) 09:37, 15 August 2017‎ (UTC)

@Rashid Ashraf: yes, taking and uploading a picture of an existing photo is a copyright violation. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

File deleted

Hello. You deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vitrovariation Epigénétique-Epigénique.pdf, which I helped Prof Sibi to published under cc by sa. She will ask me why it was removed and I must actually say that I do not really understand why it was. You wrote "Purely textual material" is excluded content.. But the file did not included only text, but a fair deal of images and graphics. Which is actually why I told her to rather put it on Commons rather than trying to transfer that on books or versity. Over 110 pages with text, images and graphics is actually not something I feel like getting into transferring myself :) So I guess I will tell her that she needs to find another place to publish her content (I have no idea of which place to suggest her...). But I am personally curious as to why exactly it is not suitable for Wikimedia projects, and I will have to explain her. If I tell her it is because it is Purely textual material, she will not understand (nor do I). So what is the underlying argument exactly ? Note that I do not oppose your decision. I am just trying to understand so that I can avoid answering positively to similar requests in the future. Thanks Anthere (talk)

Hello. Still interested by the answer. Thanks Anthere (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Commons is not your personal free web host, Commons is not for publishing own works, see COM:PS. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete

Hi, delete please files listed here. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zoranzoki21: DR must say open for 7 days. See COM:DR. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
You deleted file Borted as copyvio. And listed files are also copyvio, already deleted. See user page of user which uploaded files. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zoranzoki21: Borted was an obvious copyvio. For the files above you would have to say or prove why it is a copyvio. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Find on google pictuers.. Go here and move one by one picture and see. You will see why. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour, Vous avez supprimé ce fichier alors qu'il est en attente de validation suite au justificatif envoyé à ORTS. Pourquoi ?--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kasos fr: As stated at the DR discussion by User:Randykitty: "As indicated also at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guy lebegue.jpg, the permission issue is secondary. The main issue here is that this is out of scope, Commons is not a repository for private pics." Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Je suis étonné, ayant créé la catégorie Photos by Guy Lebègue en 2010, et illustrant la page d'une photo portrait du photographe, que cette suppression arrive au bout de 7 ans! Mais, peut-être que ce sont des règles récentes qui veulent ça? Par contre je suis gêné de la suppression du fichier File:Guy lebegue 2011.JPG qui illustre un article citant une conférence donnée par Guy Lebègue en 2011 dans la WP francophone!--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steag aneniinoi.jpg

Hi, could you have another look at this DR? Of course this is copyrightable, it's clearly not below TOO. Whether the license would apply or not, can only be determined when we have authorship information. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be indeed the flag of the place, so no reason to doubt {{PD-MD-exempt}}. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any link to verify that this would indeed be an official depiction of the flag? Jcb (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
http://anenii-noi.ucoz.com/ --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Jcb (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anneessens.png

Hi, many files of this series by this uploader have been deleted in the past few months by several different admins. Not a single one has been kept before. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, then they need to be restored IMO. The underlying map is a simple outline map which appears to have been created by a WP editor a long time ago. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
In those years Wikipedia users uploaded maps taken from all over the place with own work claims. There is not reason to assume Westermarck to be the author of that map. Jcb (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyright paranoia. No reason to assume Westermarck is NOT the author of that map. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently not paranoia, since only a small minority of admins tends to keep those maps. I suppose you are completely unfamiliar with how maps are created? Jcb (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi P199. I see you responded to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rush in Uppsala.jpg by deleting the image. Do you think you could have a look over at my other deletion requests that have gone unattended since September 20? They can be found atop at my user contributions – they are all similar erroneous uploads to File:Rush in Uppsala.jpg. Thanks for the consideration. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Posters on advertising columns

Please consider to express your opinion on this issue also here. The discussion is conducted in German, but we also understand English. Thx, MagentaGreen (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Pexels-photo-458694.jpg

Does this image from pixabay from an account with just 10 images appear to be own work to you? I just ask you this since the uploader uploaded only 2 images onto Commons. If it is a copyvio, feel free to file a DR. If not, perhaps it can be passed. I am worried since there is no camera metadata...but the resolution is very high. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Spotting license laundering can be tricky. In this case, I am hesitant to think so, because all 10 images of this Pixabay user are very similar, maybe part of a series. On the other hand, it doesn't have much educational value, I would consider it out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Yes, just noticed it's in use. That makes it automatically in scope... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Normally I don't think that images should be nominated for merely missing EXIF data. That is not a deletion criteria. For instance, I almost always delete the metadata from my uploads. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Trenton Dundas St.JPG

File:Trenton Dundas St.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 ∙ +/−

Quinte West (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A request

WRT to your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shelly and Freya Harris (17193397618).jpg... You wrote: "Kept: per 2 keep votes, although I agree with nomination".

I don't see nominator E4024 discussing your closure with you, here on your talk page. But they did leave this comment, where they seem to be offering your closure as an example of an administrator treating !votes as votes.

It has always been my understanding that a closing administrator has the authority to discount !votes that are not based on policy, or are based on factual errors.

I have a request of you. Could you consider not leaving equivocal closures?

One option would be to simply re-list discussions, when you disagree with all the respondents, and let someone else close it. It is possible that, with another week of debate, individuals who agreed with you might weigh in. Alternately, you could take off your administrator hat, and offer your own explanation as to why you disagreed with the keep opinions, as an ordinary contributor. Geo Swan (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @Geo Swan: Thanks for your feedback. I see where the issue lays: I should have written "Kept: per 2 keep arguments..." And in this case, the deletion rationale was "out of scope", which is far from a black-or-white decision. In many cases, like this image, OoS is a personal and subjective interpretation. So as closing admin, I kept the file because there are some who feel the image is in scope (I can't ignore their input). But whether or not I kept the image, the decision remains equivocal because OoS is open to various interpretation. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Photos marked for deletion

Hi P199,

You have marked these pictures for possible deletion.

I am the creator of the article Ron Baird, I have a family connection with him (which I have disclosed), and used these pictures with his permission. Let me know if there is anything I can do to verify the validity of these photographs.

Thanks,

Artscanada (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artscanada: A family connection or permission is not sufficient. The photographer of these images him/herself has to explicitly release the images with a Commons compatible license, see COM:OTRS. Please continue the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Artscanada. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Leopard cat range.PNG

Hi, please be aware that a map is not a 'Geographic or topographic feature'. Maps are copyrighted. This map is clearly above TOO. Please reconsider your closure. Jcb (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jcb: We have had this discussion before. It seems your interpretation is far stricter than what COM:DW says. In this case, the base map is nothing more than a simple outline of country borders. As per COM:DW: The factual information, such as boundary lines and locations of landmarks, is supposedly unprotected. By comparison, I deleted a map today that clearly presents the map info in a proprietary way and does not meet the exceptions stated in DW (File:Cartefortant.png). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you mind if I renom for second opinion? Only very few admins keep such maps. Not sure if you are familiar with the process of map making. Being a pilot, I have had to learn a lot about this. A map of such a part of the world is (unlike e.g. some square US states), not just simple data. The earth is more or less spherical, while maps are flat. Map makers have to make several choices to bring the advantages and disadvantages of several approaches (e.g. constant angle, constant distance) in a balance, so that the combination of those factors leads to a map that is the most suitable for a certain purpose. A map like this one is really not something you draw on a rainy afternoon. Jcb (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: I'm sorry, but the means and methods of map making are not the issue. DW are based on the final result. Suppose this map was indeed based on a non-free image and we asked the author to redo it based on File:BlankMap-World.png, it would look exactly the same! That shows that there is nothing proprietary on this map; COM:DW states: A map isn't copyrightable if the idea it expresses could only be done in one way. IMO I feel this applies to simple outline maps. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: This requires much wider discussion than just the 2 of us. Better to do this at the Village Pump then to nominate individual images. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Almost all admins do recognize that maps are copyrightable. I do not see a wider problem here. While handling the Images without source backlog, I come accross many unsourced maps. Basically there are three possibilities:
    1. I find the source (e.g. via information outside the 'source' field) and that source is free, e.g. CIA maps.
    2. I do not find a free source and I start a DR. During that DR, somehow new information leads to a free source. Result: file is kept.
    3. I do not find a free source and I start a DR. No free source is found during that DR. Result: file is deleted.
  • In case of this file, the DR was closed as kept, while a valid free source was absent. This is normally unheard of and should not happen. I can accept that an admin could somehow misunderstand DW, but I would be negligent if I would not try to fix this with the involved colleague. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted pictures

Hello colleague. I would like these photos to be deleted. Very much please.

Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ragnar Holte.jpg

Hi, I would like you to be more specific when closing this DR. Please explain, what discussion do you mean — random speculations on the age of the photograph, which has been never published before uploading on Commons or unreasoned voting, started due to canvassing on svwiki? What is your opinion on this comment, concerning COM:HIRTLE? Sealle (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sealle asked me to comment. At moment, the file states 1966 as creation year. No proof for that is given, but considering, how Ragnar looks like, this is plausible and in my opinion the photo is in public domain in source country Sweden, because 50 years from creation has passed. But current license states: "You must also include a United States public domain tag". I'm afraid, that the photo is still copyrighted in USA. No publication data here. If the photo was ever published, then 95 years from first publishing is needed, but if it was never published, then 120 years from creation is needed for public domain. Taivo (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sealle: Done. Sorry, Commons was pretty low on my priority list this week. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I follow this discussion because I think it is a very interesting issue. I interpret this sentence "The only mention of such a rule was added in 1994 with the URAA in 17 USC 104A, which automatically restored copyrights on many foreign works, unless these works had already fallen in the public domain in their country of origin on the URAA date, which is January 1, 1996 for most foreign countries" in this paragraph [[2]] that public domain in Sweden [PD Sweden Photo] also means public domain in the USA. This regulation is also stated in this tag: [PD 1996] Photos before 1969 only had 25 years of copyright in Sweden. So they became in public domain in Sweden 1994. So, therefore, I would say that this photo, also should be in PD in the USA. --Tore Danielsson (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Link to where it is written about the old law in Sweden about 25 years after publicity, which Tore mentions. Adville (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop contributing to this discussion here. For those unhappy with the outcome, see COM:UNDEL instead. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was ok to ask you to re-evaluate according to the fact that were not looked upon, because @Sealle: asked you here and you re-opened without any problems. What is the difference now? According to @Tore Danielsson: the Swedish laws were looked upon wrong (assuming 50 years when it was 25) and therefor it was not judge in a correct way. Adville (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Special rules for friends and admins on Commons? I really wondered what I wrote above because you are the one keeping and then when a friebd asks you to reopen you do without hesitation and delet the picture without looking inte the laws (maybe trusting him?), but when confronted you did a misstake from an admin from another wiki you say "go to UNCOL" instead if you are unhappy... why not just take a look into it again? Adville (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Adville: COM:AGF. This has nothing to do with friends or admin status. When I originally closed the DR, I only looked at the consensus that the image was from before 1969, but User:Sealle brought to my attention that I had overlooked the copyright status in US. But since you are bringing more new arguments, it is indeed the right procedure to bring it to COM:UNDEL. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation, and excuse me to be so eager to get a reply. This is the first conflict I've been involved in on commons (started on svwp by sealle with revenge deletions here). Therefor it looked strange when he proceeded (without contacting another admin in the first case when he said he would, but forced you to answer here...). We will go to that page and ask for undeletion because, as @Tore Danielsson: said we need a case where it is stated "this is how it works with Swedish pictures before 1969". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adville (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Dear 199,

I don't know how to use a talk page so apologies if this is incorrect, but you are the administrator who closed a deletion request, here, as kept. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rachel_Kushner_March_2015_in_Z%C3%BCrich,_Switzerland.jpg

One administrator argued to delete because the photographer who submitted the photo, and took it, was the person submitting the deletion request. Another administrator, who argued the photo should be kept, used the reasoning that it was the only usable photograph of this author, but in fact there is now, on wiki commons, an excellent and authorized photo of this author. The photo under review doesn't look anything like the author, and was taken backstage after her reading. She was not aware her picture was being taken, and this was in Switzerland, where consent must be granted to take and publish photos. Lastly, the photo is so distorting as to be defaming. You can see that she has no idea the photo is being taken, and the photo looks nothing like her. On your contribution, you write "in use." But the photo is only in use because it was previously the only photo on wiki commons. Others have tried to swap this awful photo for the legal one that looks like her, but wikimedia seems to switch it back for some reason. Finally, the photographer who took and uploaded the photo to begin with was, again, the person who submitted the deletion request, so there's no dispute there. He also doesn't want this photo on Wiki Commons. Please help. Thanks. Rosepoussiere (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

it's quite strange that a professional photo that looks like the author was immediately deleted, and a harmful terrible photo taken with no consent remains for the world to see ... thank you for adding supportive commentary to deleting the awful image. But I wonder why the useful and accurate image was deleted, since the photographer herself put it on the commons? 107.184.36.135 00:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Appeal request

Hi, my request is about this debate : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rougier_(Montlaur,_Aveyron).jpg

I am currently trying to delete all the data that the Internet has about me and one of the great concerns I have is this picture because it contains very personal and sensitive information (such as the place where it was taken !). That is the main reason why I would like it to be deleted. But, apart from this privacy aspect, the picture is of low quality and there are other pictures of the Rougier de Camarès on Wikimedia Commons : I am sure it would not be a big loss.

Sorry for my english and thank you in advance for your answer.

SbBTW (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LosBanos71stAnniversary2016 invitation.jpg

Hello P199,

Thank you for your notification about this photo/image that I uploaded here in July 2016.

This is regarding the request to delete the File:LosBanos71stAnniversary2016_invitation.jpg on this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:LosBanos71stAnniversary2016_invitation.jpg .

I saw a comment which is ~ "Advertising, unusable and out of scope."

Please do not delete the photo and please include it in the article "Raid on Los Banos" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Los_Ba%C3%B1os) because it is related and definitely relevant to the page.

Here are the reasons on why this photo should NOT be deleted:

1. It is not advertising. It is a historical commemoration of the 71st Anniversary of the Raid of Los Banos in 2016. In World War II history, this is the greatest rescue operation that took place in modern war history. For that reason, the University of the Philippines (UP) Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines, commemorated that day to honor the war heroes and rescued civilian prisoners of war. The purpose of this photo is historical education and not advertising. You will see the logo of Philippine Veterans Bank and UP Los Banos in the photo because they are the sponsors of the commemorative even in 2016. It is not advertising because this was a free and public event and open to all. As stated in the photo, they had a FREE film showing of the movie that tells the story of the "Raid on Los Banos". The movie is "Unsurrendered 2". This film is always shown for free in schools and government offices.

2. It is also not "out of scope" nor out of topic. As mentioned above, this is most relevant for the subject matter "Raid of Los Banos" because the background is the photo of Baker Hall in UP Los Banos, Laguna in 1945, after the prisoners of war were rescued. Baker Hall was the headquarters of Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines during World War II (1942-1945). The field around the Baker Hall was the prison camp of 2000+ civilians (mostly Americans) who were all rescued by the Filipino guerrillas. The rescue operation is called "Raid on Los Banos" in history books. That photo reinforces the story being discussed in the "Raid on Los Banos" page in Wikipedia where I incorporated the photo.

3. As for photo ownership (the photo of Baker Hall and event poster), it was created/owned by University of Los Banos, Philippine Veterans Bank, and the family of Col. Gustavo Ingles -- the Filipino guerrilla/World War II hero who planned the whole rescue operation in 22 Feb. 1945. There is no copyright license or limit because the photo is free for public use and for historical education.

4. Additionally, this is a historical commemoration of a great sacrifice and heroism of many Filipinos, and thus this photo is an important commemorative event on a national and cultural level. Years from now, if researchers will see this photo, they will know and be able to validate that such a chapter in world history is indeed significant and real.

5. This poster honors all the survivors and heroes of the "Raid on Los Banos". There are many survivors of WWII in the Philippines who are still alive today (but might not be alive in a few years from now) and they remember this event or were one of the fortunate 2,000+ civilian prisoners who were rescued in Los Banos. Some of them are now in the United States and take time to visit the Philippines just for this event. This photo/poster means a lot to them.

By the way, here is the info behind the photo which was mentioned in the article "Raid on Los Banos": "On 22 February 2016, the 71st anniversary of the Liberation of Los Baños was held at Baker Hall, University of the Philippines Los Baños. Part of the day's celebration included the free film showing of the documentary "Unsurrendered 2" by Director Bani Logroño, Spyron-AV Manila."

With all those reasons mentioned, please do not delete the said photo.

I am sorry if I was unable to include a reference when I first uploaded the photo in Wikimedia Commons. I am unfamiliar with the process. Sorry. I will add it in the link now.

For reference of the photo and its owner, here it is:

Photo credits: University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna https://www.facebook.com/UPLBOfficial/photos/a.249477533994.139460.186654778994/10153474775878995/?type=3&theater

Thank you and please don't delete the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary fairy8 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 March 2018‎ (UTC)

@Mary fairy8: In reply:
1. Yes, it is advertising. Advertising for a historical commemoration.
2. While the event may be significant, the image itself has no educational value other than advertising an event, that took place in the past. Therefore this image serves no purpose and is out of scope.
3. Proof is needed for copyright status. The provided link does NOT give a free license. Therefore this image actually qualifies for speedy deletion!
4. This has nothing to do with the image itself.
5. Commons is not a "Memorial" site. There are other websites for that. On the other hand, if you had uploaded photos that you took yourself of the event, that would have been in scope.
If you have other comments, please post them at the deletion discussion itself, not here.--P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 支那魔鬼習近平

I am from Taiwan. I have trouble asking for reservation because the content of the picture is very meaningful. Thank you! --223.136.64.242 04:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SWALLOWTAIL, PIPEVINE (Battus philenor) (7-12-11) 78 circulo montana, patagonia lake ranch estates, scc, az (9420694281).jpg

Hi P199, it seems to me that you just deleted the file that we wanted to keep, and that the wrong file had already been deleted and redirected to the correct one. Is this indeed what happened, and is it possible to restore the file? Thanks --LamBoet (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you re-delete some images?

A few months ago you closed Commons:Deletion requests/undefined170225, and deleted 7 or so images. They got re-uploaded. I asked the uploader about them: User_talk:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao#Commons:Deletion_requests/undefined170225 and it seems they have nothing against the images being re-deleted, as they were counting on the tool not re-uploading them. Could you? --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
--GRuban (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Fake Tag Delete

@P199: I fully denied all copyright accusation against me and all been resolved.. should been waived off. The recent copyrights speedy deletion (was too abrupt) had not gave me any details prepare to dispute or easy way to appeal the copyrights.. All being resolved and no warning should even place during issues being resolved. And not my last warning because all dispute had little participation only bots. I already reported my confusion issue to another Admin. BusriderSF2015 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: You can ask to undelete the images at COM:UNDEL. If you really are the copyright holder it should not be hard to prove it. Upload the deleted images in full resolution complete with EXIF data. If published previously, you will also need to submit a OTRS ticket, see COM:OTRS. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

about saint-francois-dassise mrc avignon

Levé_du_soleil_dans_la_MRC_avignon.jpg

Low quality and grainy photo of non-descript scenery, little educational value, out of scope. Unsure about the copyright status as well, considering all other uploads by this user were already deleted as copyvios

if you dont like my picture you can erase it

but if i understand correctly it's better to dont load a picture on wikipedia because you gonna be refuse it even if i took the picture myself and i'm the author Alex1989mtl (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Mail

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 19:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52: As requested: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30478819@N08/29015406976/ --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! --Mdann52talk to me! 11:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Philippine Stock Exchange Center.jpg

Hello,

My photo of the Philippine Stock Exchange Center.jpg was deleted due to copyright violation. It was my mistake that I did not include the copyright on the webpage where the photo is hosted.

I have added the copyright to the page as you can see here: http://stockstreetblog.com/stock-market-hours/ I would like to request this image be restored as it has the appropriate CC BY 4.0 attribution.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsch45 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rsch45: Thanks for contributing to Commons. The right way to restore the image is to ask for it at COM:UNDEL. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Testpagina foto upload Ipad weergave.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Testpagina foto upload2.jpeg

Your closures of these two RfD's are highly unprofessional, when not to say abusive. The concerning files are still not properly attributed, there is WP logo and an other picture, both not owned by the screenshot uploader. The argumentation "just fix it" is not a reason to keep. The uploader is responsible for the correct licensing + attribution, not me. I am going to reinstall the RfD's. Please refrain from this kind of closures, as it otherwise may become an issue for COM:ANU. Thanks. --A.Savin 16:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Respectfully disagree. Like I said: the images are clearly compatible with Commons. It is an obvious "keep". To nominate these for deletion is just wasting everyone's time. It would be no different than starting a DR for errors in the description. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
We have clear copyright policy like COM:Licensing and either is a picture properly licensed according to this policy, or it is not. If second is the case, the picture has to be deleted. It is right that I may do the necessary fixes, but I must not. --A.Savin 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Tuborg beer made in Turkey

For the good work in Commons. --E4024 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@E4024: Many thanks!!! But I don't think everyone agrees, see above. ;-) --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with all your decisions either, see Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Okanyes.jpg (fresh from the oven :) but that does not mean that I will not appreciate your good work. Enjoy your beer. --E4024 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
That's kind of you. I appreciate it. Thanks for your efforts at Commons as well. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Carzing.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests

Hi P199,

Appreciate your effort for your notification about this photo/image that I uploaded just May 11, 2018.

This is regarding the request to delete the File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carzing.png that is now in a debate for Deletion Request.

I saw a comment which is - "Unused promotional logo, no educational value, out of scope"

Please do not delete the photo, it is my first time to create a Wiki post, I have uploaded the image first prior to its content.

I will be uploading the content on Carzing today, I never thought that it would be best if I uploaded the content first instead of image and left it hanging for a few days. My sincerest apologies and it will never happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtepace (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Baraja de UNO.JPG

Just checking how to update the PD tag for this image, after it was kept at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baraja de UNO.JPG (as the current "released into the public domain by its author" is not correct). Is {{PD-shape}} the correct rationale for the public domain status of the packaging and card designs pictured, with an additional template noting that it is {{Trademarked}}? --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Yes, that seems correct. Thanks for following up on this. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Municipal Annexe, Liverpool 30 April 2013.jpg

Are you serious? Only image of interior? Interior of Municipal Annexe, Liverpool says otherwise. This would be a useless image of the interior even without the over-exposed person. Please reconsider. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: I completely overlooked the subcategory. Yes, that changes my opinion. The overexposed person blocks the interior view and makes the image rather useless. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Cheers! Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Gohar Gasparyan

Hi. I think Category:Gohar Gasparyan could be made a disam page; but as I am not sure of the importance of each lady, one a historical figure, the other an actual one, I will not get in there. Any Armenian Commoners listening us? --E4024 (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User:P199

User:P199 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 user page, 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.

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 ∙ +/−

Gregozphotos (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Social sofas in the Netherlands

Hi, P199. What do you think, do categories in Category:Social sofas in the Netherlands have correct name? Taivo (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Taivo: "Social sofa" is a neologism. Not sure if this has caught on in the Netherlands. The subcategories are in Dutch. As per COM:CAT and COM:LP, it should be in English. For example "Social sofa's in de provincie Drenthe‎" should be "Social sofas in the province of Drenthe‎". Actually, "the province of" is superfluous, I would drop it altogether and just have "Social sofas in Drenthe‎". --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

BildBenutzer.png

Hi @P199: ,

BildBenutzer.png claims to belongs to the Antu icons (an SVG icon theme in flat design). This is obviously false, so the authorship and the license are fake. A previous deletion request has already been classified (too hastly, in my opinion). Can we reopen the subject? Thomas Linard (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas Linard: We don't reopen a previous discussion. Just start a new deletion nomination. But it is not enough to only say that the "authorship and the license are fake". What is "obvious" to you may not be obvious to others. Please add detailed reasons why you think so. Thanks. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@P199: OK, thanks for your answer, I will do that. Thomas Linard (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Where is the other file?

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Professor Carrying a Folder and Suitcase GIF Animation Loop.gif

"My own upload, please remove. I uploaded a new version, smaller res and filesize like an editor requested on a previous upload"

They did:

"Videoplasty (talk | contribs) uploaded a new version of File:Professor Carrying a Folder and Suitcase GIF Animation Loop.gif (Smaller res, smaller filesize)"

I think they actually requested a revdel (which, for a case like this, really isn't necessary), not deletion of the whole file? Or is this File:Professor Carrying a Folder and Suitcase GIF Loop.gif? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Alexis Jazz: . I can't guess the meaning of a DR if it is poorly worded, especially if the intent is different than what they wrote. Moreover, when I mess up, almost always I'll get a message from the uploader. That didn't happen here, so I will assume that my action was the right one. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you tell me if File:Professor Carrying a Folder and Suitcase GIF Animation Loop.gif and File:Professor Carrying a Folder and Suitcase GIF Loop.gif show the same thing? (perhaps with a different resolution, but the same animation?) If they do I suppose this was indeed the intention. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
{ping|Alexis Jazz}} Yes, they are the same animation and same resolution (last version of the deleted file was 400 × 360 and 1,547,976 bytes). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleted png files

DRs were created in 2016, revived by Stefan2, uploader(s) were never notified, files were already kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision flag hearts. External websites may be using them (mw:InstantCommons), we wouldn't know. Delete vote from Ribeiro2002rafael can be ignored without disturbing peace of mind. Dada660's vote doesn't have to be taken seriously either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Just saying hello :) I eat bananas 101 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@I eat bananas 101: Thanks for the cookie and hello to you as well. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Zawadowski Teodor.jpg and Alina_Cała.jpg

Dear P199, could you please let me know on what grounds you have deleted the files mentioned above? Looking forward to hear from you, regards, Happa (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Happa: As I said in the closing comments, these images are derivative works, see COM:DW. You made a scan of an existing photo, taken by someone else. That means that the original photographer (or heir) needs to give his permission. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The pictures were taken by me. They were taken in the times (1966 and 1989, respectively), when there were only paper photos. They had to be scanned to be uploaded to Commons. Please, bring back these two pictures to Commons. Regards, Happa (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Please see COM:UNDEL to get third opinion. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Both files have been restored. Thank you, Happa (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Gensancity.jpg

File:Gensancity.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 ∙ +/−

JWilz12345 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

James S. Ogilvy

Hi, I think you deleted that file a bit too fast. @Hsarrazin: found a useful information: Ogilvy, James S.; first mentioned 1871; landscape painter, which means he was born before 1850. Can you reverse your closure please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Your DR was from July 3, so I don't think I closed it too fast... As for restoring the file, the link above doesn't provide conclusive info either. Moreover, if his work is indeed old enough to qualify for PD, then why not upload higher quality images than this useless thumbnail (which are readily available online)? Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I will definitely upload other files now that we have information. But I can't find any copy of this painting without a watermark. I should have added a smiley. ;) Regards, Yann (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, like I said, the info so far is not conclusive enough ("first mentioned in 1871" may not mean "he was born before 1850", so it will just lead to another DR) and secondly, the image itself is of too low quality to be useful. This is no loss to Commons... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
1850 is certainly old enough to be hosted in Commons. But nevermind, I will find another copy. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard J. Leon.jpg

In your closure, you said "I saw no direct link between Beverly's website and the image". Beverly Rezneck is listed as the author on File:Richard J. Leon.jpg. If you go to the source link listed, you will see that she is listed as the photographer there as well. That she took the picture is not in dispute. What kind of link are you looking for? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gustaaf Sorel in atelier.jpg

Hi, please revert your closure of this DR. You have no access to the OTRS ticket, so that you cannot judge this nomination. Jcb (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion requests removal

Hi, I think you left out a bit here, or should I remove the line myself?thanks --H2254625 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Views from automobiles

The reflection of the windshield can be seen in the photo.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P199/Archive_2&oldid=329889464"