User talk:Siebrand/Archive02

Template {{Rename}}

Hello Siebrand, i see you created a the new template Rename. My question is why you do this, we have already the template {{Rename image}}? With this now two Categories are available, Category:Rename requested and Category:Images requiring renaming. This is inappropriate. --GeorgHH 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template mania. I looked around for a template like this, asked on IRC and no one could tell me what you just told me... I'll remove the template I created some day soon and replace its usage by {{Rename image}}. Please assume good faith. Siebrand 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I created a redirect to the previously created template and put up the new category for removal. Now both templates can be used with the same source. Siebrand 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

geblokkeerd

ik kan nergens terug vinden hoelang ik nog geblokeerd blijf? jun je dat eens in de kroeg smijten op de vlaamse Wiki? Carolus 09:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoi, op nl.wp ben je geblokkeerd tot 12 oktober 2006. De Vlaamse wiki (vls.wp) kent geen gebruiker met de naam Carolus, dus ik kan niet voor je nakijken tot wanneer je daar geblokkeerd bent. Groet, Siebrand 16:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FOTW images

Hi. On Sep 30, you marked zillion images by speedy tag with deletion reason FOTW pic uploaded after 2005-05-19. Can you please explain to me, what is wrong with FOTW after May 2005? Thanks in advance --Zirland 18:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The template {{FOTWpic}} states that images uploaded after 2005-05-19 are to be deleted. I thought I might as well tag them as such. Is {{FOTWpic}} incorrect? Siebrand 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That is what Wikimedia promised the FOTW folks. They don't want us to host their images, so they should of course be removed. Just one thing Siebrand, please don't tag images created by Jaume Ollé (Jolle) with {{FOTWpic}} -- he has released all his work published on his personal homepage and FOTW under the GFDL for use on Wikipedias (see es:Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/Banderas de Jaume Ollé) and it would be very sad if they would be speedydeleted! --Himasaram 11:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I saw that only very late in the tagging process. Only some of the images created by him have a link to the message that you mentioned. I may have 'speedy'ed a few of them. Because I tagged that many (200+ it must be, I think), I'm quite sure there are a few that have been tagged incorrectly. Siebrand 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I see in my recent changes that you have tagged many images {{SVG}} and tagged some images with the 'Jolle'-license. Thanks for doing that. Siebrand 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked all the images in Category:FOTW images, and therefore all images marked with {{FOTWpic}}. Did you mark any images for speedydelete without adding FOTWpic? --Himasaram 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Siebrand 13:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

All well then :) --Himasaram 14:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please comment your nomination of FOTW images

There has been a little discussion on the Admins' noticeboard about your add of speedy delete tags to all FOTW images. I'd appreciate if you made a comment about this issue on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#FOTW_images.

Regards, Fred Chess 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for asking. Siebrand 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

categories

Siebrand,

Both Pfct and I made a call to let the matter rest for a while, so please dont be too hasty to continue the discussion elsewhere. TeunSpaans 05:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Teun, I know. And I think it would be a shame if the discussion would go to an archive, as I think with you and Pfct reaching consensus on the categorisation issue is very important for the future usability of Commons. Thus I proposed to move the discussion out of the Village pump and to a 'more quiet' talk environment specifically created for the issue. This would also reduce changes that innocent bystanders would ignore the request to have the issue rest for a while. Please let me reassure you: my proposal to move the - scattered - discussion was made in good faith. I'm glad that I was able to raise an important issue like this, although it makes me sad that it causes heavy wikistress for some. Siebrand 15:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

NSRW images

In the future, please rename images from the NSRW that you edit—over at the English Wikisource, we need to have the original pages from the text. I've moved one already (Image:NSRW Woodcock.jpg) and will be working to fix the rest in the near future. Thanks! --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 03:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gallerij

Hoi Siebrand,

Als ik het goed heb begrepen ben jij betrokken bij vertaalwerk hier op Wikimedia. Op dit moment prijkt er bovenaan de pagina's, op één van de tabbladen de tekst "gallerij". Dat is begrijpelijk voor een Nederlander, maar niet correct gespeld (galerij). Kan daar iets aan gedaan worden? Hartelijke groeten, Aiko 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ik zet 'm even op 't todolijstje... Dank voor de signalering. Siebrand 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, met dank aan Nilfanion. Siebrand 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Leefgebied hermelijn.jpg

Dear Siebrand,

I now see that this image I moved to Commons has no license tag. I notice that you were the admin deleting it at nl.wikipedia. Maybe you can help me find out the licensing status of this image, as I no longer have access to the image history myself? Thank you, --Kjetil_r 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kjetil, this image is a derivative work of nl:Image:Afbeelding:Afbeelding (kaart).JPG which is tagged {{PD}} which is a derivative work of Image:Blank map of world no country borders.PNG (as per nl:Overleg gebruiker:Jürgen) here on Commons (previously with the same name on en:) tagged {{GFDL}}. So if the original {{GFDL}} for Image:Blank map of world no country borders.PNG is correct, I assume all derivatives should be a) credited and b) be {{GFDL}}, right? According to nl:Gebruiker:Jürgen the original map was created by en:user:Pcb21 and en:User:vardion. I cannot however find any contribution like this on en: from either of them (Vardion/Pcb21. Where's the truth and the source!? Siebrand 13:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged Image:Leefgebied hermelijn.jpg as GFDL, as it is a derivative work of a GFDL image. I have also credited vardion and Pcb21, even though I can not find them in the en.wp log. It is better to be safe than sorry!

Thank you for your kind assistance. --Kjetil_r 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hallo ???

Hallo Siebrand, ik voel me nou net iemand die zomaar ergens in de woestijn z`n ogen open doet, waar moet ik beginnen, waar zijn mijn afbeeldingen trouwens??secar one 21:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Waar ben ik ??secar one 21:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Je bent in een andere wiki. Deze wiki gaat alleen maar over mediabestanden (vooral afbeeldingen) en de ordening daarvan. Op mijn overlegpagina op Wikipedia heb ik wat uitleg geplaatst met wat handige links. Zet in de preferences je taal even op Nederlands, dan ziet het er net zo uit als Wikipedia. Siebrand 21:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

sjabloon

Hoi Siebrand, ik heb het sjabloon bekeken en het werk erg goed, ik zal de soorten ook op wikispecies gaan aanvullen want daar staat niets over dit onderwerp, nu is het zo dat een aantal gegevens in het sjabloon rood blijven, misschien is het een idee om in de vorm van een tabel, de tijdvakken weer te geven (tijdstabel), met daarin de namen van era`s en epochen, en het aantal jaren?? via de link in het sjabloon kom je dan op dit 'overzicht', dit geld ook voor de Lithostratigrafie, ik zal een voorbeeld meenemen vanavond, want ik moet straks naar school (cursus geven),secar one 17:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Goedenavond Siebrand, ik zag je opmerking over het sjabloon en evt. een ander type van state museum of Illinois, welk gaan we toepassen? of is het sjabloon zoals hij nu is klaar voor gebruik???80.56.218.14 18:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

elke keer dat inloggen secar one 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Zorg dat je een goede browser installeert (bv. FireFox) en geef bij het aanmelden aan dat je de aanmeldgegevens wilt laten onthouden... Siebrand 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Please reply at the location of the original topic to not scatter talk all around. I do have that page on my Watchlist. Thanks.

Commons:First steps/Sorting

Hi Siebrand,

As I explained to you user Omegatron had tried to introduce a new requirement in this faq. He had already been reverted by two other users, burt reinstituted this new rule which is in direct contradiction to the vote we had.

I had simply reverted him, but you re-institued this rule. You invited me for discussion, but I havent seen a reply from you since. Today I have added a doubt template to this page. This seemed better to me than to take a next step, as there has already been to many reversions on this topic.

Would you please be so kind as to restore the sep 7 version yourself? Or else, could you please explain your actions on the talk page?

kind regards, TeunSpaans 07:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Teun, I support your adding of the template DoubtPolicy. I will not make changes to the page (also not if you revert my re-addition of the sentence on categorisation). I however, have no idea how to resolve this topic, on which a number of very active Commons editors have a complete opposite opinion. There should be a compromise somewhere, and I think I've seen it, but that also got flamed. We need a software change to completely resolve it, probably. Siebrand 08:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Siebrand,

I don't aprreciate your reaction. The situation is very clear:

• In this edit user:Omegatron edits the text in such a way that a category becomes mandatory.
• He had not given a valid reason for his action on the talk page
• You also insert this rule, so you have to prove what your saying. If you cannt, you should undo your edit.
• Your "support" for my doubt template creates to me the impression that you do not look for a solution, but for a way to prolonge the discussion.
• You say that you have no idea how to resolve this topic. It is evry simple: undo your edit so that it no longer violates the vote we had on this topic.
• Please be reasonable, and either give a reason for your edit, or take it back. I dont want an edit war; I can not undo your edit again. Only you taking your edit back can avert it. . TeunSpaans 17:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Teun, think what you think of it and judge me as you like. I have stated all I have to say about it for now and will not react to your invitation to make it an argument. Cheers, Siebrand 22:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

fossielen

Hallo Siebrand, ik wou vanavond gaan beginnen met het uploaden van de fossielen / afbeeldingen, hoe pas ik hierbij het bedoelde sjabloon toe??secar one 21:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Precies zoals in de voorbeeldafbeelding. Siebrand 22:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Siebrand, ik ben in gevecht geraakt met het sjabloon, er zijn twee puntjes waar ik niet uit kom:
• link:
  Nederlands: artikel
• en een verwijzing naar het boek: "Geopedia" in wikibooks.

kan jij me hierbij helpen??secar one 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ik heb er wat blokhaken en accolades over uitgestrooid en nu ziet het er ongeveer goed uit. Siebrand 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

About your deletion requests..

You've marked this image (and few others, as I guess) as a duplicate. Could you please look at the CheckUsage and replace it on all (or few) projects it is used in? Thanks in advance, -- odder 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought admins had nifty bots for that. (they don't? - ouch). I'm currently really busy doing image administration on nl.wp cleaning things up there. You can keep the image with the tag on it if you like. 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I orphaned this instance. Siebrand 15:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Tallinn cityscape.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tallinn cityscape.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. --WikedKentaur 21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Cats

What's your problem with the cats for AFV/tanks ? There's really no need to have them in the main categories if they are in these cats via specialized articles or subcat. The organisation of cats/articles worked fine before and does not need to be revoked again. --Denniss 01:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is very much no consensus on the issues. During that time please refrain from destroying either kind of information. Thanks.

I assume you would not want me to remove images from galleries just because it is part of a low level category, would you? Both systems can and do co-exist and you are pushing your POV by destroying the information. If you are of the opinion that an image is too high in a category tree, please add a lower level category, possible with the same name as the article, in which possibly only the best images (POV) of the category could be further annotated and ordered. Siebrand 10:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

verplaatsing uit nl wiki

k ga nu onder de wol maar morgen of zo zal ik deze frauduleuze toestand hier eens met jouw bespreken,...Carolus 02:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Niets? Siebrand 21:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Deleting supersededSVG and cats

Yes, you're right, sorry for that. Everything what I can say is that I was in a hurry. Thanks for your message, I've added this categories to the image. Regards, -- odder 15:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Making errors is part of the job. We all apear to make them now and then :-) Siebrand 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Civica raccolta di stampe Bertarelli

"Civica raccolta di stampe Bertarelli" is the official name of the museum. It therefore makes no sense to translate the category name, as you request, unless you want to translate "museo del prado" into "Prairy Museum"; "musée du Louvre " into "Wolfery Museum" and so on. Just in case, however, I translated the meaning of the name, but this is how the museum is called. Best wishes. --G.dallorto 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I wasn't sure, that's why I put the remark on the talk page. Same wishes to you. Have a great year. Siebrand 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cities in Poland What cities?

Could you please tell me why your bot has changed category Category:Cities and villages in Poland into Category:Cities in Poland for hundreds of polish villages?? Do you know the difference between city and village? Jakubhal 13:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also see above. For easy of categorisation and and finding things again, they have all been thrown in one basket. The definition of 'city', 'village', 'town' or 'municipality' can also vary per country which, if implemented, would make things even harder to find for those not knowning about the conventions. Siebrand 14:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder such an important change happens withot having been discussed in advance. The Category:Cities and villages in the Czech Republic with subcategories Category:Cities in the Czech Republic and Category:Villages in the Czech Republic worked very well for us. And I think most users are people who are from or close to our country and who know, what the difference is. The Villages under Cities cat. look pretty ridicully.

OK, let you have your Cities category with Villages also included in it (if other users allow to do that), but within Category:Czech Republic I'm going to put this cat also into cat. Category:Cities and villages in the Czech Republic (with redir removed) so that it would make more sense for us. --Miaow Miaow 20:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian villages

Dear Siebrand, I'd also like to express my bewilderment of the change Category:Villages in Bulgaria to Category:Cities in Bulgaria. A discussion with a Bulgarian was needed, in order to understand local specifities before undertaking the change. You should know that the only city in Bulgaria, due to distinction made in w:City#The difference between towns and cities is the capital, Sofia. All other so-called "cities" are actually towns, small towns. And villages are even smaller, many of them almost abandoned! Please, don't apply the think-globally approach when you handle such specific local matters. I'll appeal to other Bulgarian wikipedians to express here their points of view too. But I suppose that you'll hear similar comments from them. Please, consider a revert of the category. Thank you for your understanding, Happy new year! --Spiritia 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Siebrand. I agree with Spiritia for the most part, the change you made was inappropriate, in my view. There are about 5 cities in Bulgaria, and the rest of the residential communities might be called towns (following the example in the United States, where settlements with 5 people living there are considered towns). I suggest that you revert your edits, which need to be discussed in the first place. --Webkid 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello from me as well! What would you prefer to get - a polite disagreement or an angry flame?

You have made long list of significant changes, and it seems not only to Bulgarian categories. Lack of understanding on your side (what is the difference between city and village) is to be cured by self-directed education, and not by changing the whole project to suit your agenda! The oversimplification just shows your ignorance to other people's cultural differences. I can give you a long list of words for inhabited places in different languages, and they cannot be translated easily without loss of the differences between them. -- Zlatko + ^(talk) 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the RFA vote

Thanks for the vote --Tarawneh 00:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SieBot

Congratulations! This account has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat to bottom

Hi Siebrand, I have seen that you moved a Cat(egory) in one of my Maas images from the description field to the bottom aka below the licensing entry. No problem with this. But as I may upload more images, my question, is this the preferred position for Cats? --Túrelio 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Preferred order of items is:

• {{Information}}
• license
• possible information about history on another Wikimedia project (like CommonsHelper creates
• categories
• interwiki links

Hope to have been of help. Cheers! Siebrand 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My best wishes for the new year. --Túrelio 09:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

rechten

Hoi Siebrand,

Ik vond op nl:wiki dit plaatje Image:Festina watch.jpg (nl:Festina). Het mag dan een zelfgemaakte foto zijn, maar geen zelfgemaakt horloge, volgens mij zitten daar rechten op. Omdat ik hier de weg niet weet, meld ik het maar bij jou. Groeten, - .Aiko 15:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:I-105 (CA).svg and company

Regarding the dupes, please look on this page (Wikipedia), as consensus has been reached about the naming conventions. Also, TwinsMetsFan and I have both agreed on it and we changed the Interstate infobox to match the new naming convention. Restoring {{Duplicate}} to the old shields. Vishwin60 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Churches in/of

Why do you recat the categories, there was a consensus that in is better than in relation to buildings.--Borheinsieg 20:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply harmonising usage of in/of per category by country. It's a mess in there, unfortunately... :( Siebrand 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Churches in Italy.--Borheinsieg 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could make this more homogeneous by replacing the of cats with in…--Borheinsieg 20:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So what you do think is appropriate if you block me and them engage in debate? I'm kind of offended by that. I do see that there was voting on one (1) category and that's about it. What I'm currently doing is at least make sure that each cat by country is consistent, although overal naming schemes are a mess. Please unblock me. Please let me know what you would like me to do. This appears to end in a deadlock. No one knows what to do with categories and that's a real shame, as everything is about them in this project with one million images. Siebrand 20:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 75 categories in Category:Churches by country. 19 of them use 'in', the other 56 use 'of'. What other thing do you expect me to do but to rename the 19 instead of the 56? *grumble* Siebrand 21:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Do the churches belong to a country? No, they are located there, therefore in is in my opinion better. Juiced lemon made a bot request but this is still undone.--Borheinsieg 21:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And your bot is unblocked for 10 minutes.--Borheinsieg 21:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll cat them all to 'in'. Siebrand 21:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, Juiced Lemon is actually moving those categories, too, see contributions.--Borheinsieg 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My bot will most probably do it faster :-) Siebrand 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Some users and I discussed about the deletion of Category:Churches in Italy, and we choosed the form Churches in <location> as a standard for churches categories. We didn't talk about other building categories, but the reasoning would be the same. We have numberous building categories in Commons, and most of them are standardized with the preposition “in”.

So, the logical consequence of the decision about churches is that we'll move other building categories, especially religious building categories. --Juiced lemon 21:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the rename finally. Orgullobot was ñot fast at all :-( --Ikiwaner 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:I-105 (CA).svg and company

Regarding the dupes, please look on this page (Wikipedia), as consensus has been reached about the naming conventions. Also, TwinsMetsFan and I have both agreed on it and we changed the Interstate infobox to match the new naming convention. Restoring {{Duplicate}} to the old shields. Vishwin60 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

wat doe ik verkeerd?

Hallo Siebrand, ik heb geprobeerd de laatste foto`s op de verwijdernominatie te zetten, maar ergens doe ik wat verkeerd, ??secar one 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Geen idee... Wat doe je en waarom denk je dat je het verkeerd doet? Siebrand 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ik heb een verwijderverzoek geplaatst op de foto`s en vervolgens in lijst geplaatst op de pagina van verwijder verzoeken, alleen staat daar nu alles rood?secar one 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mogelijk heb je verkeerd gebruik gemaakt van het verwijdersjabloon? Hier werk het net een beetje anders dan op nl.wikipedia. Siebrand 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wat moet ik dan anders doen?secar one 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

City cats

Why do you move cats from cities and villages to cities? I thought cities would only be towns with more than 100,000 inhabitants and small villages with 2,000 inhabitants aren't called city, are they?--Borheinsieg 00:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By definition that would be correct, but for categorisation purposes there is very little use in doing that, as few people will know if a city or village has 75k or 200k inhabitants. The heading of Category:Cities by country states: "Cities by country, where a City for categorization purposes may refer to any settlement, as large as a megalopolis or as small as a village." These are the prime reasons for orphanig and redirecting categories named Cities and villages in/of ... Siebrand 00:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mean, but it was only the contribution of User:Makthorpe. My mother tongue is not English, therefore I can't say if city would be OK as a term for a en:municipality with 1,000 inhabitants. But of course it is good that theres one category for all independent villages, municipalities, towns, cities or something else. The point is if city is the right term for it. On de.wikipedia we use Ort that can be really all from the small locality and city district to the city with 1,000,000 inhabitants. But go on with your changes, it's still better than before ;-)--Borheinsieg 00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, town would be not so offensive...--Borheinsieg 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Soon all 'places where people live' will be under one cat. If the community agrees to a better name, it's trivial to rename. Getting to unity (with whichever name) is not, unfortunately. Thanks for the confidence. Siebrand 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Maybe I will propose something in the future. Will you recat Category:Villages in Germany and Category:Cities in Germany to Cities in Germany?--Borheinsieg 00:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I also appreciate this change (because it's simpler than before) but I know people who will be definetely against of it. I guess we should tell them about such changes, may be they have some ideas about it. MaxiMaxiMax 03:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We need most probably some reorganization about cities, towns, villages and lowest administrative divisions of countries. However, the issue appeared to me to be rather complex, and I'm surprised that so important changes are taking place without prior discussion. --Juiced lemon 14:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A word like "town" seems less offensive indeed, as stated above. And indeed, it's strange/shocking that large bot-driven recategorisations are done on this category structure that was built out by different people, without any prior discussion... --LimoWreck 21:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, "inhabited localities" is a generic term that refers to all kinds of human settlements there are out there. You might want to consider it instead of "cities"; it would certainly be more correct.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"inhabited localities" appears to be very correct to me. I have one problem with it: it's relatively long. Could you also think of something both covering the complete area of "inhabited localities" and consisting only of one (preferably short) word? Siebrand 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What about en:municipality? That contains all towns and villages which are official a administrative. Read [1] for further details. This term would be correct for the smallest administratives because it would not contain localities, suburbs or something else. I don't know if this was correct for other countries as Germany but I think it's much better than city.--Borheinsieg 21:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have considered municipality, but that would not go for villages that are part of a municipality that would be entitled to their own category. An example of this would be Category:Oss, a Dutch municipality that has merged with many other (possibly former) municipalities or villages). So far the "inhabited localities" appear to be very to the point, aside from being a long category name label. The German 'Ort' or Dutch 'plaats' would be very appropriate. In the Dutch dictionary it is (ill) defined as 'city, village', indicating that is the broader term for both concepts. We could use the English 'place', which would also be very appropriate, but that is very ambiguous (about 50 meanings aside from the one we need) and thus not suitable. I'll keep on thinking on this... Have you got any other ideas of know of somebody 'in the know'? Siebrand 21:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking of it, it would be suitable it we would disambiguate it, of course! Siebrand 21:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Municipality" is not a generic term; it has very specific meanings in many countries. In Russia, for example, there are several types of municipalities, some of which can comprise several inhabited localities (and even several types of inhabited localities). Some countries do not have any "municipalities" at all. In any case, if you are looking for a shorter term (although I don't really understand why), you may also want to consider just "settlements". It is not as precise, but it is far better than either "places", "cities", or "municipalities", and definitely shorter than "inhabited localities".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you (everyone involved in this issue) propose that we could get to consensus on this issue? In my opinion (please say so if you disagree) it is very confusing to keep multiple structures for inhabited localities, as there currently are (cities, municipalities, towns, settlements, cities and villages, cities and places, cities and towns, cities, counties, and townships, towns and villages; this is about it, but there are possibly more). Siebrand 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should follow the administrative organization of countries, with the English Wikipedia as a reference. So, objects can be located in precise areas: such localization is nearly impossible in settlements which have not definite boundaries.

Settlements are only useful when they don't match an administrative division (generally, cities cover several “municipalities”, villages are inside a “municipality”). We should still find some criteria to call settlements as cities, villages, etc. --Juiced lemon 10:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So maybe there should only be one 'by country' supercategory as entry point for 'inhabited localities' called Category:Inhabited localities by country and e.g. Category:Inhabited localities in Poland that would contain subcats as designed by those that would actually know which of cities, municipalities, towns, settlements, cities and villages, cities and places, cities and towns, cities, counties, and townships, towns and villages they want to use? Btw, I'd rather not see any combined categories, as that would be continuing the lack of clarity. Siebrand 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 Support Siebrand's proposal. In every country there are different forms of administratives. So why do we have to use the same term for all these different forms? In the Wikipedia projects they have different terms, too. For Germany municipality would be the best solution, as to read in en.wikipedia (see here. Could you, Siebrand (or your bot ;-)), help us by replacing the cat cities with municipalities?--Borheinsieg 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the bot/I could. But let's wait for some more input from people that made comments here. There would be little need for 'straight forward' recategorisation, though, as the current categories would be present in a newly created supercategory. Once we have established consensus on the naming of the supercategory, I will of course participate in recategorising on request. I have already tried to get in touch with OrgulloKMoore (possibly incorrectly spelled) to ask if I could take over his autorecategorisation job and also mailed the writer of the script that takes care of {{Seecat}} if I could use his script. Unfortunately both have not yet answered (mails/talks 2 days ago). Siebrand 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSE - In Britain both City and Village have quite specific meanings and nobody would dream of looking under City for material about a Village. In the British context (and I am aware that this may fit poorly elsewhere), a high level heading of Towns and Villages could be used within which Cities, Towns, and Villages could be separated out. A city is after all only a town with a specific status but a Village is never a city. I am also deeply concerned that all the changes have already been made without any discussion or consensus - several of my Welsh village images have already been re-classified as Cities. This make absolutely no sense to me nor I suspect to most people living in Wales. |Velela 16:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This change was really bad. Changes of the Category structure of this dimension should get discussed before a bot gets used. The old system was long and ugly, but not too wrong. The new system to put everything under cities where villages are meant is definitly one step back.

To get to a conclusion: 1st: Do not stick to the "Cities" system. 2nd: The old system covers most cases, let's go back to this. 3rd: The System "inhabitated localities by country" would rock for me if we find a solution for its subcats. I can't really imagine that we will. --Ikiwaner 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A new supercat would be good but let's discuss about the name for every single country. “City” is really wrong in all relations and the other abilities (terms) can just fit some of the world's countries. Therefore, let's find the right name althoug we've to think about many cases. But what about the English Wikipedia? They haven't got all categories with the name “city”.--Borheinsieg 18:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what is going on here, but I have a serious problem with categorising "Villages" under the category "Cities". To me there is a clear difference between these two. Unless a good reasoning can be given, I will have to revert this edit here and restore the category Category:Villages in Austria for example. sincerely Gryffindor 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bedankt voor je stem!

Dank je wel dat je voor mijn adminschap gestemd heb! -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Welcome log

(I know I am breaking your rule above, but I never reply on my talk page. :) You can reply here if you like, though.) That is fantastic news and I am so pleased to hear it. Is SieBot doing everything as Orgullobot did (ie category moving, untagged image autowarning), or just welcoming? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I was just about to move the Welcome log to Commons:Welcome log, but I didn't want to break all the bot action. Can you move it after updating your bot for that? thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting welcome log! And same idea to make location bot-independent :-) --EugeneZelenko 15:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem to move the Welcome log to a new location. It is some work to move all the pages (although renaming can be done with a bot, too, as far as I know). Please let me know to which exact location you would like things to be moved and have yourself be surprised once I find out how :-).

As for the cat moves and stuff: I do not have an admin user here, which means that I cannot do everything that Orgullobot could do (I did run for admin once, but withdrew that). So far I have to do some manual work to be able to move cats, but it's still not that hard. I have to ask Orgullomoore a bit more about that bot. But you can expect that functionality too in the future. I have also expressed interest in the bot that can handle {{Seecat}}, but the owner has not replied to a request of mine to share the code for it, unfortunately. If you could be of any assistance, please do not hestitate to do so.

Well, that's it for now. Please let me know which other issues you might have. Cheers! Siebrand 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, moving the welcome project wasn't that much work. Done. Siebrand 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Handling both {{Seecat}} and hash-redirected cats would be great. It was never clear to me if Orgullobot did this. :) What is admin status needed for?? only protected files, right? the old category should never be deleted, but redirected. If SieBot could take 'requests' like Orgullobot used to, that would be great too. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin status would be needed to shoot obviously incorrectly named cats on sight. I handle this now by speedy-ing them, which also works. Nice mail to commons-l. Let's hope newbie contributions are going to be checked again. As said, taking the requests as per Orgullobot's commands hasn't been implemented yet. I will be needing some tutoring in that area. Once that's done, I'll let you know and then those pages will probably also be moved into the Commons: namespace, to ensure continuity. Cheers! Siebrand 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the news, but due to "different points of view" with some Commoners (i.e. I know italian copyright law, they do not but pretend to), I have decided since a few months ago to contribute to Commons limiting my participation only to upload of railway and trains photos for our wikipedia project. C ya --Jollyroger 21:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Too bad to hear that, Jollyroger. I hope to hear that some day in that past you will return and enrich the Commons further. Cheers! Siebrand 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help and your bot for moving the New Orleans march category. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for your contributions. Siebrand 21:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Own photographs?

Could you please confirm that you have personally taken the photographs that you have uploaded and licensed under a cc-by license, such as Image:Passalacqua.jpg and Image:Balducci.jpg. I could imagine that if you were the one that took the picture, you would like to be credited with your own name... Please also create a User:Claxroma with one or more links to your wiki, so that we can find you. Thanks and have fun, Siebrand 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I confirm I've taken those photos: Image:Passalacqua.jpg, Image:Balducci.jpg and Image:Sinistra_Liberale.jpg. I'm their IT Manager. So I create a User:Claxroma too. Now might you delete the warning please? And if something misses please help me 'cause I'm new about it. Thanks and have fun you too User:Claxroma 19:53, 18 January 2007 (CET)

Hi Claxroma, as an employee of that organisation and looking at your position, you may not be in a position to license its logo and photographs. For now an administrator has removed the logo and we definately need more information on the legal situation of the images - please remember that you may be licensing actual assets of the company you work for and doing so without being authorised to do that, may bring you in an awkward position once your employer recognises that. Kind regards, Siebrand 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, now I modified the licence of every photo. I manage their respective websites and I check their web appearance. If something is not correct please tell me the right way of publish these photos. Thank you very much. Claxroma 22:00, 18 January 2007 (CET)

Logos are allowed or what is this babble about then ?

Concerning Image:Experts exchange.png of which you gave me an attention about on my talk page (after deletion). Isn't this saying logos cán be used [Template:Logo] ? Thanks for explaining..
R U Bn 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please see the history on the file. Fair use is not allowed here. Siebrand 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Image:Iarleyceara.jpg

The owner of Image:Iarleyceara.jpg permitted the copyright. --LeonMello 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please ensure that you deliver adequate proof of permission and license for the image. Currently there is no proof for this, so I have reverted your change to the image description. Cheers! Siebrand 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What should I do? I sent a e-mail for the owner of photo and member of www.vozao.com.br staff, he accepted my request. Do you want a screenshoot, what is a adequate proof that I can bring to Wikipedia Commons?

-LeonMello 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Source image

Ik dank u voor uw opmerkingen. Wij zijn beginnelingen met het import van foto's, raadgevingen zijn welkom. Mijn moedertaal is Frans, met een goede kennis van het Nederlands en een basis van het Engels. Met vriendelijke groeten. --Varech 13:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot request

Hey, I was wondering if I could request a task of your bot? I batch-uploaded a bunch of images with the wrong date info. I have the list of images. Would it be difficult to change the date to the correct date? TIA, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. We'd need to find a regular expression (or a simple find/replace) that would do that and I would need to have the list of images. Let's talk it over on IRC later on (around 19.00 CET or possibly even after 22.00 CET), as I'm at work now... Siebrand 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Hi Siebrand,

I regret to see you keep pushing your POV [2].

If you have ever read what I wrote, you know that we had a vote on this and that both options are equally applicable.

07:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Teun, these are default templates {{Please link images}} and {{Please tag images}}. I have not created them and do only as instructed by Commons:Welcome log. It has not been my intention to offend you or anyone else, simply to teach newbies to be able to use Commons. If you wish to participate in welcoming and educating new users, please visit Commons:Welcome log and please assume good faith on my side instead of barging in here and accusing me of POV-pushing. Thanks (yes, I'm very irritated now and I thought we had left this behind you and me). Siebrand 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I too had hoped that this was behind us :-( Teun Spaans 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for that remark - didnt recognize it as a template. I know that you have the good of commons in mind, but our opinions of what this good consist of tend to disagree. :-(

I also noted two of your actions on ToL page. One we wont discuss now, as we should avoid quarrels, and we both feel too heated now. But I hope you allow me to ask a question about the second: you removed the stock.xchng link as a resource. The site policy prevents commercial use and redistribution. But on for example [3] the author of the photo states: Royalty free, no restrictions. Where do you see this "non-commercial only" statement? On [4]? If so, don't the copyrights of the image maker take precedence? Has there been any discussion on this? Teun Spaans 11:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This running into the problems of copyright and usage conditions. The usage condition for 'www.sxc.hu' states: SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS! Users that upload agree to it and we, as honest users, should also. The only way I see to have those images freed is to have the original uploader relicense/re-free them after being contacted in direct contact with the requestor and with e-mail proof. (yes, this is sad, but this is how we should behave on this and yes, we should most definately take action on this). Nice suggestion: presentation (Google video) by Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons (1h15m) on creative rights. Groet, Siebrand 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Welcome log active again

Thanks --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D

Thanks for the message.

How can I stop the images being deleted?

Tenacious D Fans 10:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I made this page, so others can find the Tenacious D images. [5] I did not realise these images were copyright violations. I found them on a creativecommons search of pictures that were allowed to be shared. Tenacious D Fans 10:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On this wiki we only allow free images. Restrictions on commercial use (CC-NC) and/or derivative works (CC-ND) are not allowed here. What you could do is ask the publisher on Flickr to change the license. If the original images are not relicensed, the images can not stay here. Siebrand 10:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I made this page for Tenacious D images [6], neither of them have been verified. Could you please do this? Tenacious D Fans 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'Lee' image is not allowed, as there is a 'Non Commercial' license on it. The other image appears to be in order. Siebrand 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on user page

Check your user page: someone posted a question there. :-) --Tuvic 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nino Barbieri

Please check my contribution "Emu - Three adult birds" and tell me if it is OK now. I have several hundreds of (I hope) good pictures to contribute but I can upload them only few every day. Ciao --Nino Barbieri 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I completely missed this as you posted on my user page instead of my talk page (I didn't get notified and obviously I 'miss' it on my watchlist, too, possibly mistaking it for my talk page :). I'm going to check right now. Siebrand 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

100% stunning! Thank you _so_ much for adding your images! Siebrand 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February. Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文（简体） | 中文（繁體） | +/−

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome

   Thank you for welcoming me to Wikimedia Commons. I think I'll like it here! Mike1024 (t/c) 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Orlando Gibbons

Hoi,
In 2004 I added a small picture of the composer Orlando Gibbons to Commons. The picture is given its age undeniably PD. The notion that it is to be deleted because of a lack of copyright information is really too much.

First I do not recall where I got it from, second the information provided was good at the time, third when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, what do you think it is ?? GerardM 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Questequilux.sxw

oldtimer bill 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Thanx siebot for the welcome message! I hope that you have been able to detect the following "image" (a table principally) among some deletions of my original faulty ones! - It appears to be somewhat hidden. A query from a newbie here : how do I get someone to see the page - do I use the "cite this page" item on the left of the main wikipedia page? Cheers, - oldtimer.

Image:Questequilux.sxw oldtimer bill 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I meant Siebrand!

- oldtimer.

Bill, I have no idea what you are actually asking. Do you mean 'see' as in render somehow? If that is the case: that is not possible for this type of file. MediaWiki only renders images and .svg-files, not text data. You should categorise your file in the appropriate categories to ensure people that may be looking for it can actually find it. Please let me know if I interpreted your question in the wrong way. Cheers! Siebrand 12:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Agrocybe_aegerita_1.jpg

Hi Siebrand, I had uploaded the image from the url I had signed in. The image was {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. Now it isn't. I am searching for replace. Sorry for my bad english. Please contact me on itwiki. By  :) --Archenzo 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck. I'll try and help you find one. Siebrand 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

oldtimer bill 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeking Commons item

a little surprised by what you say. It´s true that the picture in the gallery is a blank, but in my "contributions" is a listing of my efforts, and in there it cites "questequilux.sxw". Putting the mouse onto that gives me a wikipage showing the table and the text! it really does seem to be rendered. Am i really in the wrong section of "Commons"? My point was that in the listing of my contributions, my faulty image files are listed above the correct filename as "deletion requests" and i thought that was the reason that you might not have noticed it!. Nevertheless this labelled "image" does seem to work. Cheers, oldtimer oldtimer bill 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that "Image:" is just a w:namespace, and does not mean that only images reside in it (that may be confusing). Please put the link to the page you are describing here, because I'm interested in seeing what you see :) Siebrand 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that???

"I do not mind" means "that's fine with me". I think you meant to say you object? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 12:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I did not. I didn't mind conditionally. Siebrand 13:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NL Upload page

Impressive stat!! I have heard similar figures for ARwp and FRwp. Great to see. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Loch - Scotland.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Loch - Scotland.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Andre Engels 08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on user page

Check your user page: someone posted a question there. :-) --Tuvic 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nino Barbieri

Please check my contribution "Emu - Three adult birds" and tell me if it is OK now. I have several hundreds of (I hope) good pictures to contribute but I can upload them only few every day. Ciao --Nino Barbieri 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I completely missed this as you posted on my user page instead of my talk page (I didn't get notified and obviously I 'miss' it on my watchlist, too, possibly mistaking it for my talk page :). I'm going to check right now. Siebrand 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

100% stunning! Thank you _so_ much for adding your images! Siebrand 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February. Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文（简体） | 中文（繁體） | +/−

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome

   Thank you for welcoming me to Wikimedia Commons. I think I'll like it here! Mike1024 (t/c) 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Orlando Gibbons

Hoi,
In 2004 I added a small picture of the composer Orlando Gibbons to Commons. The picture is given its age undeniably PD. The notion that it is to be deleted because of a lack of copyright information is really too much.

First I do not recall where I got it from, second the information provided was good at the time, third when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, what do you think it is ?? GerardM 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Questequilux.sxw

oldtimer bill 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Thanx siebot for the welcome message! I hope that you have been able to detect the following "image" (a table principally) among some deletions of my original faulty ones! - It appears to be somewhat hidden. A query from a newbie here : how do I get someone to see the page - do I use the "cite this page" item on the left of the main wikipedia page? Cheers, - oldtimer.

Image:Questequilux.sxw oldtimer bill 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I meant Siebrand!

- oldtimer.

Bill, I have no idea what you are actually asking. Do you mean 'see' as in render somehow? If that is the case: that is not possible for this type of file. MediaWiki only renders images and .svg-files, not text data. You should categorise your file in the appropriate categories to ensure people that may be looking for it can actually find it. Please let me know if I interpreted your question in the wrong way. Cheers! Siebrand 12:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D

Thanks for the message.

How can I stop the images being deleted?

Tenacious D Fans 10:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I made this page, so others can find the Tenacious D images. [7] I did not realise these images were copyright violations. I found them on a creativecommons search of pictures that were allowed to be shared. Tenacious D Fans 10:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On this wiki we only allow free images. Restrictions on commercial use (CC-NC) and/or derivative works (CC-ND) are not allowed here. What you could do is ask the publisher on Flickr to change the license. If the original images are not relicensed, the images can not stay here. Siebrand 10:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I made this page for Tenacious D images [8], neither of them have been verified. Could you please do this? Tenacious D Fans 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'Lee' image is not allowed, as there is a 'Non Commercial' license on it. The other image appears to be in order. Siebrand 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Agrocybe_aegerita_1.jpg

Hi Siebrand, I had uploaded the image from the url I had signed in. The image was {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. Now it isn't. I am searching for replace. Sorry for my bad english. Please contact me on itwiki. By  :) --Archenzo 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck. I'll try and help you find one. Siebrand 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

oldtimer bill 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeking Commons item

a little surprised by what you say. It´s true that the picture in the gallery is a blank, but in my "contributions" is a listing of my efforts, and in there it cites "questequilux.sxw". Putting the mouse onto that gives me a wikipage showing the table and the text! it really does seem to be rendered. Am i really in the wrong section of "Commons"? My point was that in the listing of my contributions, my faulty image files are listed above the correct filename as "deletion requests" and i thought that was the reason that you might not have noticed it!. Nevertheless this labelled "image" does seem to work. Cheers, oldtimer oldtimer bill 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that "Image:" is just a w:namespace, and does not mean that only images reside in it (that may be confusing). Please put the link to the page you are describing here, because I'm interested in seeing what you see :) Siebrand 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that???

"I do not mind" means "that's fine with me". I think you meant to say you object? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 12:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I did not. I didn't mind conditionally. Siebrand 13:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NL Upload page

Impressive stat!! I have heard similar figures for ARwp and FRwp. Great to see. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Loch - Scotland.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Loch - Scotland.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Andre Engels 08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Files by User:Paulblank from nl.wikipedia

Siebrand,

A lot of pix of this user have a CC_BY_SA-2.5 license, but I don' t see any permission. All I read is a "wikipedia only" permission. I have nominated them for deletion, as commons doesnt host "wikipedia only" images. As you seem to have been involved in their upload, perhaps you could contact him and ask him for his explicit permission that anyone may use these pix for any purpose, both commercial and non-commercial? If you include a link to the license, that should be sufficiently clear.

kind regards,

Teun Spaans 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

See Category talk:Files by User:Paulblank from nl.wikipedia Siebrand 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)