User talk:Rehman/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Rehman/Archive 1![edit]

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, which produces: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|correct name}}` For more information read the full deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) -- SieBot (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Bahrain[edit]

Sorry, I'll fix. Connormah (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Just to point out. Have a nice day. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:HambantotaWindFarm-SriLanka.JPG[edit]

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

This media was probably deleted.

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

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

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

Kam Solusar (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kam Solusar. Apologies for not adding proof. Please find that i have attached it now. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rehman. Unfortunately, this permission is not broad enough for Commons. You asked for permission to use this image in one article, but Commons (like Wikipedia) requires that all images can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose (see Commons:Licensing). So, to keep this image on Commons, the author needs to explicitly agree to release the image under a specific free license. The best solution would be for the author to simply change the license on Panoramio (I think Panoramio supports Creative Commons licenses), or let him fill out this email template and send it to the OTRS team. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have asked the author to email the permission as said in the link provided. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I dont think the author is interested in this. Do feel free to move ahead with the deletion. Thanks and regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there's not much we can do without a response from the author. But thank you for trying to contact him. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. :) Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HoaBinhDam-Vietnam01.jpg[edit]

File:HoaBinhDam-Vietnam01.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 ∙ +/−

Was NC-licensed on Flickr. --Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No its not: [1]. Not sure, but am i missing something here? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure .. - yes ;-). The striken-through $-sign means NC. Of course, you may directly contact the Flickr-user and ask him for a permission without NC. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ow. Sorry about that, my fault. Thanks for the tip though. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over categorisation[edit]

Hi, I don't understand why you created Category:Daniel-Johnson Dam as category:Manic5 is the same ? I will reverse this overcategorisation if you don't provide a very good reason. Pierre cb (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is move is in relation with the decision to merge Manic-5 and Manic-5PA to Daniel-Johnson Dam in Wikipedia (its parent article, as these powerhouses are part of the main dam). Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem of English Wikipedia, not Commons. On top of that, the dam is called Daniel-Johnson, the complex is still Manic5 as far as I know. Pierre cb (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the two Manics are just a small part of the dam. And all the photos shown are only the dam, not the Manics (the powerhouses). So i really think a parent category on this is reasonable. Similar articles do provide examples of what i mean. Hope you understand. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but now there is two categories with the same images. This is redundant and has to be resolved. Pierre cb (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean. What do you think of removing the Manic5 category? Do you think its a good move? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to advise. You have even put File:Manic-cinq-1.jpg, an obvious photo of the power plan, with the dam directory. 99% of the people know Manic 5, I'm not so sure about Daniel-Johnson dam. The only way I see it is to make Daniel-Johnson dam a sub-category of Manic5. Pierre cb (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we make Category:Manic5 and Category:Manic5-PA subcategories of Category:Daniel-Johnson Dam. And list any particular media showing the powerhouses (i.e. File:Manic-cinq-1.jpg) to one of the two subcats. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK for me. File:Manic-cinq-2.jpg is of the power too. Pierre cb (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information template[edit]

Hi Rehman, I noticed overall you did a good job cleaning up some of the older description. Some of the earlier uploads don't include all information in a consistent format, but we generally don't delete all of them because of that. File:Reuss_River_needle_dam.jpg is one of these. When converting them to the information template, some users find the gadget "Add Information" available in the gadget tab of Special:Preferences useful as it helps them complete the description. Personally, I don't use it as it has a few pitfalls. It does avoid that the description appears incomplete as in the previously mentioned file and which can have it end up being deleted. Docu at 10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Docu. Thanks for the tip, I will keep a close eye on such files in the future. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Rename a category[edit]

Hi Rehman,

Please have a look at the above outline when you feel a category should be renamed. Rather than moving files manually, in general, it's preferable to use {{Move}} before a rename and then ask for the bot to move the files.

I noticed you renamed Category:Lac des Dix. Do you have any reference for the new name? In general we try to avoid making up placenames.

Cheers. Docu at 10:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Docu. Thanks for the link, very much helpful. With regard to the Lac des Dix; thats the French name. The English name is Lake Dix. "Lac des" means "lake". Please do let me know if you think I am wrong. I'd be glad to revert if necessary. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way we can confirm usage of this translation? If not, we generally go with the (local) placename. Docu at 10:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick G-hits test shows over 9 million hits for the French name, and less than 2 million for the English. I think it is better to revert and turn the English cat to a redirect. Sorry, and thanks for pointing out. Will revert shortly. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Hits aren't necessary the best criterion, but in this case, "Lake Dix" Dixence got me just 38 results. BTW, you might like HotCat. Docu at 10:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to familiarize myself with HotCat. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated License[edit]

Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:SevernBarrageProfile.jpg, Image:SevernBarrageCaissons.jpg and Image:SevernBarrage-ArtistsView.jpg, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the image correctly? If you are not able to do this, the images will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 10:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikbot. I didn't upload those, just helped move them to Commons. Although, I will see what I can do. Bye bot :) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri_Lanka_location_map.svg[edit]

Don't do that without discussion. The map is used in a lot of wikis and part of the location map project. Uwe Dedering (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You don't need a discussion for that; its just to notify that there is a better file for the relevant subject. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is only your opinion. I think the other file is not better. Nobody has to use my map, but you try to force your opinion, that everybody should use the other map. But this map has no documentation on projection and boundaries (north,east etc), which is needed for location maps. I have removed the template again. The next time you insert it without discussion, that will be reported as vandalism. Uwe Dedering (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, thats alright. I just added it to notify of the other file. Its alright with me if you want it just the way it currently is. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore categories[edit]

Hi, sorry this has to be my first message to you, but could you please restore the Category:Maps of Bahrain to the Bahrain maps? I am assuming their removal (here, here, here, and here - I may have missed one or two) was a mistake made when adding the deletion tags, but such categories help the users of Commons locate as many relevant images as possible. -84user (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, thats entirely my wrong. I am currently uploading a file, once I finish that, I will fix my errors immediately. Thank you for pointing out. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri Lanka-CIA WFB Map (2004).png[edit]

I undeleted this file because it should have been being used in the 2004 edition of the CIA Factbook on Wikisource. Should a new map be released, it's important that the original still be available on Wikisource. Let me know if you have any concerns. --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :). Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alps[edit]

(Moved to relevant talkpage; to keep the discussion together.) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...[edit]

Could you please explain this edit?

I uploaded some images, which I put in a category for aerial photography, only to have some other contributors recategorize them as "bird's eye view".

If I remember their explanation, aerial was for the traditional surveillance style photos, from a great height, perpendicular to the ground. Bird's eye view was for photos taken from a height, not perpendicular, not like a traditional surveillance style photo.

1. Are you aware of a discussion that concluded the bird's eye view category should be deprecated? If so could you direct my attention to that discusision?

2. Do you accept that the bird's eye view category is valid? If so where do you figure the dividing line should be?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoSwan. The discussion on the category can be found here.

Personally, I think the category is quite redundant. And I don't believe the angle/height thing. "Aerial" literally covers all aspects of "Bird's eye view". And I don't see any sources that say the angle thing. You may also want to see Category:Satellite pictures, for similar pictures that are somewhat more perpendicular. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you didn't advise User:Svajcr that you nominated Category:Bird's-eye view for deletion?

I just did that. But I really think it was your job.

Our decisions are supposed to be reached through consensus. And a real consensus isn't acheived if we choose not to advise those we know will disagree with us of the discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's my fault. I forgot to notify the user. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 16:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert[edit]

Could you please revert the changes you have made to various photography categories. By moving images from certain categories you have made some interwiki links lead to dead-ends, for example Kite aerial photography now has a "Commons category" link to Category:Aerial photographs from kites which is empty. This is not very helpful to readers from other projects. Also, please consider adding more information in your edit summary. Instead of just "-cat" please include the name of the category or categories being removed, for example "-cat Category:Aerial photographs from kites". Thank you. -84user (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should modify my request to "please revert some of the changes", because many (probably most) changes are correct (this for example because it was not a photograph, and edits like these are also Ok). With no category names in the edit summaries, it is difficult to determine which reversions are needed. For myself I am only interested in the historical images from kites, balloons, and rockets, but other users may wish to see other forms. In the meantime I have made gallery Aerial reconnaissance which might be more useful than those categories anyway. -84user (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 84user. Sorry about the wrong move. Please see my reply on the relevant deletion page. Thanks. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constellation Program[edit]

Hi - I randomly and without knowing you had already placed it on the DeLinker, found the same change needed for the Constellation Program. Small tweak in my request - the P in Program is capitalised, as set out on the DeLinker request. Happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think it should stay lowercase, just like the Wikipedia article; primarily based on the Manual of Style. What do you think? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh, there is no consistency on the NASA websites. So yes, maybe we should follow the Wikipedia lead after all, to achieve internal consistency (en:Apollo program and en:Constellation program. Feel free to modify. Ingolfson (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be useful to move the Category:Apollo missions cat into a new Category:Apollo program cat while we are at it. I mean Category:Apollo Command and Service Module or Category:Apollo Guidance Computer etc... none of these are "missions", but they are part of the "program". (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree, we should move the "Apollo missions" to "Apollo program". Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks[edit]

No problem...I originally thought it was a remake myself till I started looking into it and realised it was a new construction. What confused me was the fact that the Shuttle MLP-1 was turned over to Constellation...I didn't find the part about it being retired after Ares I-X. Also, have you got any suggestions for renaming the other MLP cats? While the (NASA) disambiguation is fine for now, I just don't like the idea of that generic disambiguation being used for those three categories, and yet using the very specific (Ares I) for the one we're talking about. Problem is, (Shuttle) is not appropriate, since they were used for Apollo as well. I just cannot think of anything good. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SpaceShuttleDiscovery final rollout for STS-133.jpg source[edit]

Hi,

I noticed you uploaded File:SpaceShuttleDiscovery final rollout for STS-133.jpg. I nominated it earlier today as a featured picture, but when I was looking over its description page just now I couldn't find a direct source link (just link to NASA's homepage). I've Googled "Larry Tanner" and it appears he is an employee of United Space Alliance, rather than NASA. If this is the case the image is probably copyright as opposed to NASA images which are in the public domain.

I looked at spaceflight.nasa.gov and the other galleries on the Shuttle/Station part of NASA.gov but couldn't find it. If you still have or can find a direct link to this image at NASA.gov, then there are no problems; if not, the image may get deleted due to copyright concerns.

Thanks. --Jatkins (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jatkins. The image was actually uploaded by NASA on Facebook. I am absolutely sure that this image is from Larry Tanner, and that he worked for NASA. As it was mentioned just under the image by NASA. Only thing is, I don't think its possible to find a direct link to that file on the NASA websites. But I may be able to trace down the link on the facebook page; would that do? Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've found the image (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=440378341771). Where it says Larry Tanner is a "USA KSC employee", USA refers to United Space Alliance (see the TwitPic description page), a Boeing/Lockheed coalition that is contracted by NASA to assist with shuttle launches. I'm going to post a comment on the image page on Facebook, to ask what the image's copyright status is, but from what I can tell at the moment it seems to be copyrighted. Anyway thanks for replying quickly and giving the Facebook link. --Jatkins (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to fix the licensing, I should've done it right. And I'm sorry for that. I am ok if the file is deleted on copyright grounds. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll wait for a response from NASA on their Facebook page, just to make sure that it definitely is copyrighted. I've uploaded space images before that I thought were public domain but then months later found were copyrighted (e.g. this Soyuz launch image from last year; most Soyuz launch images on NASA.gov are by NASA photographers, this was by ESA). Some good sources for NASA images which are almost always public domain are spaceflight.nasa.gov -> Gallery and the KSC Media Archive. Thanks. --Jatkins (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rehman. I got a reply from NASA's space operations outreach manager on Twitter here: [2]; she said Larry Tanner owns the image, so it's not in the public domain. I've nominated it for speedy deletion (the same thing I did to the Soyuz image I uploaded, mentioned above), and an admin will probably delete it within a day or two. Anyway, thanks for explaining that it came from the official NASA facebook page so it could be resolved. It's too bad that it's copyrighted because it's such a great image but at least it's online for viewing. --Jatkins (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Sorry again for not checking well on the licence. Kind regards. Rehman 00:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QIC[edit]

Please stop adding back unassessed - they'll only be removed again tomorrow. The bot autoremoves all images which haven't had any activity on for a week, or assessed for 2 days. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I though it was a bot malfunction, and was thinking of adding a note on the bot's talkpage after I'm done with my work at Wikipedia. What exactly is the procedure to "go for another round" if the bot removed an unassessed entry? Post it back again on top? Rehman 13:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least put a new datestamp on it. I'd personally wait a few weeks though. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sorry again. Thanks for the info. Rehman 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hfevents.png[edit]

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

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

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

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

Rockfang (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status?[edit]

Hi! I'm just trying to clean up on Commons:Disputes_noticeboard and I noticed a discussion between you and Docu. What is the status? Are you happy with the current categorization or is there still categories you would like to change? --MGA73 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like all is settled, to me at least; I'm happy with the current style. Let's forget about it; feel free to archive :). If anything ever comes up again, I'll just repost it with a linked to the relevant archives. Thanks! Kind regards. Reh man 02:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is nice to hear :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help moving?[edit]

It can be semi-automated :) ZooFari 05:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, that would be great. ;) Suppressing-redirect would also be better where appropriate... Thanks. :) Reh man 05:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There are many "what links here" so the redirects have been left unsuppressed. Happy holidays, ZooFari 07:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy holiday to you too! ;) Reh man 07:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double/broken redirects in COM:VP archives[edit]

Hi Rehman, I see you moved the Village pump archives. Please remember next time to request or perform yourself the fixes to the broken redirects it left behind. This is not the first time it was moved, thuss links like Commons:Village pump archive-3 were still pointing to the location where the archive was before you moved it. You can check this by clicking "What links here" in the sidebar and clicking "Hide links" and "Hide transclusions". You'll be left with a list of redirects that need fixing. I've ran a bot to fix them since I happen to notice it. –Krinkle^talk 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krinkle. Sorry, i didn't realize they were moved before. Thanks for fixing. :) Reh man 03:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

I've closed your RfA as successful and promoted you to adminship on Commons. Congrats! If you have any questions feel free to let me know. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I do have some questions, but will ask you as I remember. Thanks again. :) Reh man 13:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a well-known guide here, but I suspect it's quite outdated and overlooks some of the newer components of the sysop flag. Just keep in mind that as long as your intentions are good, no mistake can be held against you. Good luck. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad users trusted me at the RFA, and I will not abuse that trust. Thanks again for the guide, I will do my best :) Kind regards. Reh man 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! If you need help I'm also here. Good luck! --ZooFari 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Reh man 06:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ascl.jpg[edit]

Looking at this user's other uploads, it looks to me as if many-if not all-are similarly ripped from somewhere. Do I need to actually find proof- or wait for it to be sent to OTRS- or is there any process to just assume all of them are copyrighted and delete them? I mean, if File:Aerosatelitebsb.jpg is actually his won work I'll eat my hat! Courcelles (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the user's talkpage, and their consributions (all uploads, no edits), and the extremeness of photography File:Aerosatelitebsb.jpg (which actually seems like a Google Earth rip), I think all is good to go. ;) If you are ok with it, I could start deleting all of them... Reh man 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd nuke them all if we were on enwiki, but I'm not a sysop here ;) If you hit nuke, I'll chase throughout the WMF and remove the images, I have no confidence he actually took any of these photos, and the risk of copyvios, IMO, outweighs the risk we lose one or two legitimate images. Courcelles (talk)

Alright then, nuke it is. Reh man 01:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Reh man 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commons_WikiProjects[edit]

Category discussion notification

Category:Commons_WikiProjects has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Chaser (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:DeutscheBank-Twintowers.jpg[edit]

Hi Rehman, I have chosen intentionally which one should be deleted ... but if you know better ;-) The one I had tagged has a not nice (file) history.

A general question: shouldn't be deleted dupes (if not totally new) get a redir (to the surviving file) instead? If they were linked externally the links are now dead?! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Generally, for files that are not so popular, we don't redirect. Or else we would have a ton of "File:" namespaces that are actually redirects. If for any reason there was an external viewer looking at the site, there would be the deletion log stating what happened... But of course, if you want it redirected, you could always do it yourself ;) As per the "not nice history", I don't understand you... Reh man 04:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again and thanks for your response. I meant by "not nice history" that the surviving file has unnecessary history entries (file history as well as description page history).

(you can skip the next block)

If someone had embedded the image via hotlinking (which is explicitly allowed but - as I see now - there is also a warning that a file may be deleted) he would just see an error but not the log pointing to the surviving file. A minor issue, however. :-) I was thinking also of other wikis which use commons via mw:InstantCommons. working broken because it is deleted for being a dupe. I thought a redirected file would be still working - but it does not (maybe a config error of the other wiki that it is not checking for redirs).

Would redirs in the file namespace consume much of any resources? No cats, no templates, no whatever - just a redir consuming maybe some kbytes of storage. The question is: how much advantage would it created if we had redirs for dupes and how much would it "cost".

However, you are right and thanks for letting me spam your talk page, which is certainly not the correct place for this discussion. :-) It seems that redirs are not created for duplicate deletions as you said.

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap, very cheap for that matter. They take a tiny fraction of server resource, so feel free to create if you feel necessary. But IMHO, mass redirecting of all deleted dupes could be a bit of a nuisance (arriving at a file, but a redirect - a Commons case in Wikipedias). On the part of the not nice history, it is generally best to preserve the oldest edits, for many reasons: attribution, analysis of "file evolution", or even due to the awesomeness of how old an edit is. Don't worry about spam, my talkpage welcomes anything :) Cheers. 15:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. No - I do not feel that a redir in this special case is necessary.

One last question: I would like to understand what you mean by this nuisance: "arriving at a file, but a redirect - a Commons case in Wikipedias". If a redired file is embedded in a wikipedia article it works seamlessly/transparently doesn't it? And if the file which is to be deleted is in use the commons delinker is ordered to replace all uses, isn't it? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Delinker replaces these files only if instructed to, which is not always the case. What I mean by "arriving at a file, but a redirect - a Commons case in Wikipedias" is: Most Wikipedians have no clue on the functions of Commons. So if they have a redirect-file of Commons embeded in an article, they would be very much confused because:

The file doesn't have a history tab
All other tabs don't exist, or are either red
The file doesn't state that it is from Commons

So there would be a discussions on "new file bug", "file cannot be deleted", and what not. I have experienced this ;) Reh man 23:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a "new file bug": this redirected file does work seamlessly for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jpeg_thumb_artifacts_test.jpg.png or http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Jpeg_thumb_artifacts_test.jpg.png . Just like non-redired Commons files.

However, users would only arrive at such redired file pages if we would not continue to use delinker. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Support[edit]

Hello, Your change to this template broke a lot of pages, including FPC and VIC. I reverted them. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No it didn't, my second fix did the needful. This is a simple purging issue. Please restore... Having the documentation page would allow the changing of categories and interwikis without always changing the main template... Reh man 06:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting files[edit]

That was the first time someone delete a file even before I use the {{Speedy}} template. :D Béria Lima ^msg 15:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes time contradicts itself ;) Reh man 15:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump#HelpDesk archives[edit]

Hi Rehman, sorry for bugging you again! @Commons:Village_pump#HelpDesk_archives: I am just curious what (and why doing what) lesson you learned? ;-D (if you like to tell me). I am asking here since it is probably a bit off topic in VP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. At this proposal, the change proposed is actually without doubt, uncontroversial. But, the there was a confusing proposal (on the same topic) prior to this which many people thought was something to change the whole of Commons speedy deletion system. So, instead of changing the proposal then and there, I archived the whole section (removing many of others comments), and started a new section (the current). Thus, as you can see, there are no real reasons (relating to the proposal) that people are opposing, rather, they are opposing to what I did... Yes, very confusing... That wont happen again ;) Btw, dont worry about bugging, my talkpage is welcome to anything and everyone! Cheers. Reh man 09:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed your original proposal and was (to be honest) at first frightened that you want to introduce some crazy number coding in the deletion reasons (like it is in enwp afaik "file deleted per speed criterion F7" or similar). I hate this even on enwp. ;) But I continued to read and understood that you probably do not want numbers only.

And I now understand what you mean by moving discussions (although the COM:HD archiving question is very different from your declined proposal), thanks. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

;) Reh man 13:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manual archiving[edit]

Don't manually archive community discussion pages like that. There's a reason the bot is set for 4 days. I went back to find responses to my comment and it was gone. It's a bit suspect of you to do that. Killiondude (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my mistake, and I have already apologized many times. See User talk:Jameslwoodward#Removed_content, the above section, User_talk:Axpde#Collapsing, and the original nomination... Reh man 02:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted categories[edit]

Hi. Please be conscious that we have no tool to fix links from other projects to Commons category when it is moved. That's why is needed to keep link to the new category in the summary of deletion log. If a primary reason of move is stated in the deletion reqeust, it should be also in the deletion summary - the fact that the category is empty is often only a consequence of an inchoate moving. Thank You. --ŠJů (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry about that, will add the details in the logs from now on. Thanks for the tip. Kind regards. Reh man 09:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Importer[edit]

You have a message at m:User_talk:Kylu#Importer. --Nemo 14:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, watching it. Thanks :) Reh man 15:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Sources - Photographers[edit]

Hi, Commons:Sources - Photographers is obsolete IMHO. Flickr has change a lot since this page was created, so Wikimedia Commons. Thank you for your message. --OsvaldoGago (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I have deleted it per above. Reh man 00:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uss carl vinson cvn-70.jpg[edit]

Hi Rehman, what were you trying to achieve there? -- Docu at 16:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That merge doesn't do much; just trying to save older edits. Had a little extra time I guess ;) Reh man 16:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I edited one of these images, but it looks like one of my edits got deleted in the process.

current edit history

    * (cur | prev) 15:59, 2011 January 22 Rehman (talk | contribs) m (994 bytes) (moved File:US Navy 020123-N-6436W-001 USS Vinson (CVN 70) Returns Home.jpg to File:Uss carl vinson cvn-70.jpg: History merging) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 00:25, 2011 January 21 Zaccarias (talk | contribs) (994 bytes) (+Category:USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70); +Category:War in Afghanistan (2001-present) related operations outside of Afghanistan using HotCat) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 11:32, 2010 October 18 Benchill (talk | contribs) m (850 bytes) (removed Category:Images from US Navy, location Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA; added Category:Puget Sound Naval Shipyard using HotCat) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 08:53, 2010 January 6 Emijrpbot (talk | contribs) m (895 bytes) (BOT - Changes to allow localization:) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 18:23, 2009 October 21 BotMultichillT (talk | contribs) (898 bytes) (== {{int:filedesc}} == {{Information |description={{en|1=020123-N-6436W-001 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA (Jan. 23. 2002) -- USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) returns home after completing a six month deployment. As the first carrier on station in the ) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 01:02, 2008 March 12 Alessio Rolleri (talk | contribs) (1,356 bytes) ({{Information |Description={{en|020123-N-6436W-001 en:Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, en:Bremerton, WA (Jan. 23. 2002) -- USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) returns home after completing a six month deployment. As the first carrier on stati)

If one image is a scaled down version of another one, the process is to delete the scaled down version.

History merging is problematic as the diffs break. -- Docu at 16:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you made a single edit to add this category, which seems to already be in the newer file. Normally I don't do such moves with files that has significant page history; this has very little history (including mostly bots)... But for example, if someone uploaded a 200px image in 2008, and someone else uploaded (on a different file name) a 300px image in 2009 of the same subject from the maybe same source as the 200px image, and if the 2008 image is tagged for deletion as dupe of the 2009, then it is (in most cases) better to merge both, just to save the history of the original uploader and dates... Reh man 01:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A thought[edit]

Aside from the fact that some of us see your efforts as a newbie trying to change perfectly good methods and others see them as a breath of fresh air, you might have better success if you didn't take such big bites. Although, arguably, deleting them saves nothing, certainly some of the templates at Commons:Deletion requests/Random polling templates deserved deletion. You might have succeeded two or three at a time, I think. Regards, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I only realized that after clicking save on the second page... :( Reh man 00:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bahrain_Financial_Harbour,_Manama.jpg[edit]

File:Bahrain_Financial_Harbour,_Manama.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 ∙ +/−

...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reason dropdown[edit]

Please, see this. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 17:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Reh man 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking[edit]

Please have a bot unlink them if they're still in use. They're old, outdated and not needed, and I'd like them deleted. Thanks for your understanding. Moulder (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, unlinking them is degrading the related page's quality. If the file is used, it cannot be speedily deleted per uploader's request. I have already deleted the ones that are unused. If you'd like the used files deleted as well, feel free to start a DR. Feel free to ask if you need help. Kind regards. Reh man 09:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're unused now. Thanks again for your cooperation. Moulder (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Just a heads up though, removing content without a valid reason (user request deletion is not valid) will be, in most cases, considered as vandalism. Regards. Reh man 11:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog in Protected edit request[edit]

Hi Rehman, Category:Commons protected edit requests is backlogged. If you have a moment, could you do some? -- Docu at 05:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Docu. My OS is currently being reinstalled; currently accessing via mobile. Will look into that as soon as that is done, if no one has done so by then. Kind regards. Reh man 14:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRBot & new templates[edit]

Has Bryan already responded?--DieBuche (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately, he didn't respond, yet. Reh man 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write him a mail. He's hardly ever here--DieBuche (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got a reply. He said that he did the necessary changes and to wait about 24hrs for the updates to take effect. :) Reh man 12:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]