User talk:Pikne

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hoonete autoriõigused[edit]

Tere. Kas hoonete autoriõigused kehtivad 70 aastat peale hoone valmimist või 70 aastat peale autori surma? Või mõni muu number? Flying Saucer (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know realy which of these is the lake at the photo. Some years ago I just scaned it from one tourist bucklet. I will nominate it for deletion because it could be copyvio. Hugo.arg (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hogenskild Bielke[edit]

Hello! I just saw that you have replaced my upload of File:Bielke, Hogenskild i VJs julnummer 1942.jpg with a much better photo of the same portrait. That is all very well as far as the picture is concerned, but the title of it now becomes completely misleading since thne new version definitely isn't from the Christmas 1942 issue of Vecko-Journalen. May I thus suggest that you instead upload your photo under a completely new and appropriate name? /FredrikT (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS The same applies to File:Brahe, Per d ä i VJs julnummer 1942.jpg. /FredrikT (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I kind of noticed that the titles became misleading, but considered it unimportant as far as description fields are correct. Do we need keep the low quality versions? If not, we could ask the titles to be renamed. If you still want to keep the versions that you uploaded, I'll do as you suggested. Pikne 08:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not necessary for me to keep the old versions. A renaming will be fine. /FredrikT (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Moshee kemer tyrgi vaike.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!

Rapsar (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klooga mois1 2008.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!

Ivar (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klooga mois2 2008.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!

Ivar (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New URL for OgreBot's old version filemover[edit]

Hello. I've identified you as a user who has previously used OgreBot's old version filemover. Please note the new URL: toollabs:magog/oldver.php. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eesti kultuurimälestis embleem.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!

Pildirüüstaja (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estonia puiestee, 15.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!

Pildirüüstaja (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Samsung Galaxy S2 white and black.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

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

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

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

Vera (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you requested that this image be restored at Estonian Wikipedia before it gets deleted here? Green Giant (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShkoderMosee.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!

Halavar (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

–Totie (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, –Totie (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kilplala1.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!

Pildirüüstaja (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:30-Tukumsi purskaev.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!

Taivo (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FileImporter: Your questions on the Village pump[edit]

Hi Pikne, thanks a lot for your hints on the village pump! The thread there has been archived by now, so I'm replying here. I'm sorry it took a while.

  • We’re currently looking into how the feature should deal with log entries in general and we’ll keep the problem you described on our radar. As for the upload log entries, technically we’re not copying them, they are generated deep down in the core at a place were the actual file import happens.
  • The auto-creation of a local user on Commons has a different cause, and it looks like this can be tackled separately. I’ve created a ticket for this: T199076
  • Last but not least, we’re already working on changing URLs to interwiki links in the edit summary: T194644, T196647.

-- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File imports[edit]

Hi, you are massively importing insourced maps that have been deleted previously. Please stop doing that. Jcb (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jcb, author has also uploaded files like File:Turku pagasts LocMap.png from the same series for which there is an explicit "own work" statement by uploader. So I don't think there is an actual doubt about other maps from the same series being by the same user. I now see that it wasn't worthwhile to use "own assumed" tag as confusion arose from it.
I noticed that some of these files had been deleted earlier, but I also did put an effort into making clear what the source is, and so immediate deletion seems kind of harsh. I kindly ask you to restore these files and if the situation is as bad as you indicate then rather more conventionally tag them as "no source" which would give me a few days to make source info clearer either by referring to example above or by contacting the author in order to confirm explicit authorship. Pikne 14:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Turku pagasts LocMap.png has no source on the base map either. Unfortunately, many people think that they are the copyright holder if they make a derivative work, which is not the case of course. So unless you find the source for the base map (and it turns out to be free), we cannot accept these files. Jcb (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that there may be some doubt that these may be derivative works, but that sort of approach instead of assuming good faith surprises me a little since then you'd probably have to delete vast majority of maps on Commons. Anyway, I'll try to investigate further these maps. Pikne 14:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ewert and The Two Dragons 2013.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!

91.105.11.232 10:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A hint[edit]

Related to the Latvian maps topic: https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dal%C4%ABbnieka_diskusija:Kikos#Deleted_maps_from_Commons --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:HubbleField.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!

BevinKacon (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Estonian FOP template[edit]

Hello. I felt that the existence of FoP-Estonia for a country that has no Commons-acceptable (commercial) FOP becomes inconsistent with respect to other FoP templates for no commercial FOP countries. I have created {{NoFoP-Estonia/en}}, and I'm planning to move {{FoP-Estonia}} to {{NoFoP-Estonia}} (to be consistent with other no Commons-acceptable FOP countries). After the move I will morph the content of the template so it transcludes the /en template.

I think the closest comparison to Estonian situation is Iceland's, according to {{NoFoP-Iceland}} "Overview photos in which no single copyrighted work is the main subject of the image should be fine." It means it is OK to reproduce copyrighted works in Iceland if the work is not the main subject, similar to Estonia's. So I see the need to harmonize Estonia's FOP template with those considered as having no Commons-acceptable FOP.

Here is the content from {{NoFoP-Estonia/en}} which will be transcluded to {{FoP-Estonia}} after the move.

Estonia Warning sign

Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright.

This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in Estonia. There are very limited freedom of panorama exceptions in Estonia, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than non-commercial purposes.

However, it is permitted to reproduce works of architecture, works of visual art, works of applied art or photographic works which are permanently located in places open to the public, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, by any means except for mechanical contact copying, and to communicate such reproductions of works to the public if the work is not the main subject of the reproduction. See COM:CRT/Estonia#Freedom of panorama for more information.

If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and becomes a substantial reproduction (that is, becoming the chief motif or main subject), this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation.

Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer for more information.

If you have more suggestions especially in wording, feel free to suggest so. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in template talk. Pikne 08:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:FoP-Estonia 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 template, 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!

Ox1997cow (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FoP-Estonia 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 template, 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!

Ox1997cow (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]