User talk:StellarD

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

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bisbee, Arizona and Conchise County, Arizona[edit]

Since Category:Bisbee, Arizona is completely within Category:Cochise County, Arizona, when you added Conchise County, Arizona to photos, they are now showing up in both categories. When it comes to places like cities and counties, only the smallest location is required to categrorize a photo, unless that location is split among counties. --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out, I am new here and was unaware of that rule. I will go back and remove images from that category. Best, StellarD

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Underlying lk (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplikat[edit]

Hallo, ich habe File:Cafe Wortner.jpg zur Löschung vorgeschlagen, weil ich das vor ein paar Tagen schon als File:2012 Wien 0267 (8332094945).jpg hochgeladen habe und wir das nur einmal brauchen. ;) lg darkweasel94 10:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dasselbe für File:Salm Braeu.jpg, das gibt es schon als File:Wien 033 (4042567169).jpg. Aus dem "Wien"-Album von Janos Korom habe ich alles hochgeladen, was urheberrechtlich geht, d.h. bitte zuerst schauen, ob wir das schon haben. darkweasel94 10:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thank you for uploading File:Al-Baleed (Zafar)12.jpg to the Wikimedia Commons. I noticed that when you uploaded from another Wikimedia project, you left out some important information, or copied it incorrectly. In the future, please consider using CommonsHelper, a tool which automates the process of moving files over. Thank you,

Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muestra de hipiles yucatecos en el Peón Contreras.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!

D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Paintings in Progreso Palacio 3.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  +/−

Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sack's Cafe.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!

De728631 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pollo Feliz Drivethru.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!

Wdwd (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Javelina Cantina.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!

Wdwd (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Restaurante El Guanche 2.jpg[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Restaurante El Guanche 2.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Elisfkc (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
File:Fish Sculpture Mutrah Corniche.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!

De728631 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheraton Doha Hotel and Resort.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!

Elisfkc (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

File:Art Alley Ajo, Arizona 6.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

De728631 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of Cullera 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Leoboudv (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cullera Mountain.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!

Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr2Commons[edit]

I have just come across a few images you have recently uploaded from Flickr. I would appreciate it if in the future, you used the Flickr2Commons tool. This tool allows images to be moved to Commons from Flickr without having to download the images to your own computer. It also brings in the largest resolution of the image, as well making sure to list the correct license and url, making it easy for the automated Flickr Review system. Also, it is fairly easy to categorize images with this tool. To use it, you just need to go to the url and authorize it (where it says "authorise first"). Elisfkc (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip – I was completely unaware of this tool. –StellarD (talk)


Thank you very much[edit]

Hello. Thank you very much for editing the Muscat exhibition in oman.
(Mostafameraji (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you Mostafameraji for contributing your excellent photographs! Adding a category makes it much easier to find them, otherwise they get lost and overlooked. :)
StellarD (talk)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thunderbird Motel (34670062102).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!

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roads in Tenerife[edit]

Hallo, I have sen that you added TF-82 to File:A0317_Tenerife,_Looking_direction_Tamaino_and_Puerto_de_Santiago_aerial_view.jpg. In my opinion is the road in the front TF-1. See at the coordinates 28.288440 and -16.808213. Regards, Wouter (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wouter, I added it to TF-82 because it appeared that the image was shot from the side of that road. However, if you think it makes more sense to add it to TF-1 instead, that probably makes more sense. Regards, StellarD (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright status: File:View of Rio Jucar.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:View of Rio Jucar.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:View of Rio Jucar.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:View of Cullera.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:View of Cullera.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:View of Cullera.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Playa Racó 4.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Playa Racó 4.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Playa Racó 4.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Playa Racó 3.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Playa Racó 3.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Playa Racó 3.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Powerhouse Visitor Center.jpg[edit]

Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  français  hrvatski  italiano  日本語  മലയാളം  Nederlands  sicilianu  Tiếng Việt  +/−


A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Powerhouse Visitor Center.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY), BY SA (CC BY-SA), CC0 (CC0) and PDM (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Kingman Club.jpg[edit]

Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  français  hrvatski  italiano  日本語  മലയാളം  Nederlands  sicilianu  Tiếng Việt  +/−


A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Kingman Club.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY), BY SA (CC BY-SA), CC0 (CC0) and PDM (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Hotel Brunswick Kingman.jpg[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Hotel Brunswick Kingman.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Hotel Brunswick Kingman.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Prickly pear cactus flavour gelatto.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Prickly pear cactus flavour gelatto.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Ronhjones  (Talk) 04:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:North Italia.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:North Italia.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:North Italia.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Ronhjones  (Talk) 05:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Mr D's Route 66 Diner 3.jpg[edit]

Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  français  hrvatski  italiano  日本語  മലയാളം  Nederlands  sicilianu  Tiếng Việt  +/−


A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Mr D's Route 66 Diner 3.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY), BY SA (CC BY-SA), CC0 (CC0) and PDM (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Museum Club 2.jpg[edit]

Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  français  hrvatski  italiano  日本語  മലയാളം  Nederlands  sicilianu  Tiếng Việt  +/−


A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Museum Club 2.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY), BY SA (CC BY-SA), CC0 (CC0) and PDM (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Iglesia de la Tercera Orden (Mérida, Yucatán) 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!


Ermanon (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Troika 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!


Staszek Lem (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 01:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Just wanted to thank you for your recent work organizing images related to Condesa, Roma, etc. I've been waiting for someone to help organize media in these areas, especially related to fountains, monuments, public art, streets, etc. Keep up the great work! -Another Believer (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants and food in Mérida, Yucatán[edit]

Hello. Thanks for all your work on Wikimedia!

A question: Is there any reason to have the categories named Category:Restaurants and food in Mérida, Yucatán and Category:Food and restaurants in Progreso, Yucatán? The more common construction seems to be "Restaurants in (name of city)", with non-restaurant media in a "cuisine" or "street food" or other category. I note that the two categories aren't even consistent with each other. I wish to suggest changing time to the more common "Restaurants in (name of city)" format (with non-restaurant media recategorized accordingly). As you created the categories, I'm asking for your feedback first. Thoughts? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infrogmation, thank you for pointing out the discrepancy in category naming, especially between Category:Restaurants and food in Mérida, Yucatán and Category:Food and restaurants in Progreso, Yucatán. I've generally been using 'Restaurants and food in…', so the Progreso category was indeed a mistake on my part. My apologies for any confusion I may have caused!
I originally started uploading and organizing photos for use on travel articles for a Wikimedia sister project, and wasn't aware that there was a single standard. At the time, it made sense to me to group food and restaurants, especially for cities with many hundreds or even thousands of uncategorized photos. I found that some foods pictured couldn't be easily categorized as part of a cuisine unique to a city or region (e.g. fast food), and many photos were of unidentified dishes at unidentified restaurants. I also wanted to try to avoid redundancy, i.e. having categories with just a single image. Since then of course many of these categories have grown. If we follow the division of restaurants and cuisine, what shall we do with these other images? –StellarD (talk)
P.S. I too lived in New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina. I'm based in Spain now, but still have fond memories of NOLA. :-)
Cool. I plan to rename, see Category talk:Restaurants and food in Mérida, Yucatán and comment if you wish. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Turkey Creek 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!


Estopedist1 (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:La Pascuala.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:La Pascuala.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:La Pascuala.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Nominated for deletion by User:A1Cafel. I am a software, please do not ask me any questions but the user who nominated your file for deletion or at the help desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

File:Observation towers near the Al Mirani Fort (47882219761).jpg[edit]

català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  Esperanto  français  galego  italiano  lietuvių  magyar  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  português  polski  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  Tiếng Việt  Ελληνικά  македонски  русский  українська  հայերեն  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  فارسی  +/−


Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:
  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it, please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? ->Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


File:Beautiful Muttrah (47830159892).jpg[edit]

català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  Esperanto  français  galego  italiano  lietuvių  magyar  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  português  polski  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  Tiếng Việt  Ελληνικά  македонски  русский  українська  հայերեն  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  فارسی  +/−


Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:
  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it, please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? ->Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Wadi Dayqah (48779397553).jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wadi Dayqah (48779397553).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

JuTa 01:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Riyam Park with incense burner Mabkhara (47954080007).jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Riyam Park with incense burner Mabkhara (47954080007).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

JuTa 01:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm?[edit]

What was your reason for this? Thanks. DS (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, although Adolf Muhr took these photographs, Frank Rinehart claimed the copyrights, and indeed on some versions of these files here on Commons he is listed as the author. Because of the competing claims, I thought it best to include both. Do you think now that given that the copyrights have expired it's no longer necessary to credit Rinehart? Thanks, StellarD (talk)
Good point re: mentioning Rinehart, but note that not all the photos in the "by Muhr" category are from the Muhr/Rinehart collaboration. I'd annotate the M/R photos individually. DS (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StellarD sorry to bather you, but the naming of the category seems strange to me: by by Charles C. Pierce or has it somehow something to do with James, George Wharton? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was an oversight – of course there should be a single 'by'. Thank you for pointing this out, and I will address it. –StellarD (talk)
Actually, as I'm not an administrator, it appears that I can't move the category even though I just renamed it… –StellarD (talk)
It should be okay now. :-) Lotje (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lotje! –StellarD (talk)

Districts for national parks in Arizona[edit]

Hello StellarD,

Could you explain about park districts in Arizona? I have not seen their use in the national parks of other states. Is Category:Williams Ranger District the only one in Category:Kaibab National Forest? Is Category:Red Rock Ranger District, the only one in Category:Coconino National Forest? It is the only one I can find, but I think I saw that it covers other places also. There is no enwiki article that mentions all this. For example, to me it is very confusing to have to look under "districts" to find many of the "Trails Coconino National Forest".

I tried to open up the categories, e.g. so the user does not have to look under Category:Red Rock Ranger District to find all the "Prescribed burns" hidden in there, or under Category:Williams Ranger District to find animals in Coconino National Forest; who would think to look? However, I may have made a mess, for which I apologize, because I do not understand the whole system being used there for these parks in Arizona. {It is strange as I did many of the original categories for trails, fires etc. there but I will leave it up to you now!) Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.
Hi Krok6kola, thank you for your questions regarding the divisions of national forests in Arizona! I appreciate that the organization is confusing (and incomplete), and will try to explain my thinking as clearly as possible.
1) National forests vs. national parks – In the United States, national forests are not national parks, and are managed by a different agency. Like parks, they are considered public lands, but unlike parks, they are open for logging, mining, hunting, cattle grazing, etc, as well as for recreational use.
2) Districts – Individual national forests usually cover very large areas over several counties, and often include multiple mountain ranges. Category:Coconino National Forest, for example, includes not only the Category:Red Rock Ranger District but also the Category:Flagstaff Ranger District and Category:Mogollon Rim Ranger District (which probably should be grouped under a category for 'Ranger districts of Coconino National Forest', for clarity). Each ranger district has its own ranger stations and maintains its own trail system; the more heavily-visited districts, like Category:Red Rock Ranger District, have which sell passes as well as maps of hiking trails, books, etc. Similarly, I understand that each ranger district manages its own prescribed burns; however in the case of wildfires, resources are more likely to be shared. In national forests which have had a very large number of fires I tried to subdivide into districts, but perhaps this doesn't make sense and they should all be lumped together under the main category for that particular forest.
Other national forests in other US states are organized in this same manner, so this is not unique to Arizona.
3) Trails – In some districts trail access is free, in others a fee is required, which is as far as I know is not transferable to other districts. Depending on the individual national forest, the trail system can be very extensive. I tried to follow the National Forest's own organizational system as a guide; see here and here. I did notice that someone had done a fair amount of previous work organizing trails around Sedona, which was very helpful – thank you!
When I first started trying to organize the Arizona national forest categories, it was frankly overwhelming. If I recall correctly, Category:Coconino National Forest had more than a thousand (maybe it was two?) random images with nondescript names of nondescript settings, and it was mainly by going back to the source files (i.e. Flickr) that I was able to determine which ranger district, land form, river, etc. that a given photo depicted. The work is incomplete, and I fully appreciate that the system I've devised is confusing. I hope this explanation helps, and of course I'm open to any suggestions!
Best wishes, StellarD
Thanks for the explanation. (I know the feeling of being overwhelmed!) What is confusing is the none of the other U.S. national parks, forests, monuments, landmarks etc seem to have districts on the Commons and Arizona as a state does not seem to have districts. Also, Wikipedia articles on these places do not mention them.
Putting those districts in one category for each place is a good idea. Perhaps you could put some sort of text explanation at the top of the categories? Do you think that most of the editors/users looking for trails (having fees or free) and other such features in Arizona would think of looking in ranger districts? Maybe that is possibly a useful category under trails (free vs. fee required) as I never ever thought of that possibility.
In Category:Pakistan I had to insist that there be retained a Category:Lakes of Pakistan (now hidden under Category:Nature of Pakistan‎) since at one point an editor stuck lakes under Category:Lakes of Pakistan by administrative unit. It is virtually impossible to determine a lake's name without visually seeing it and I did not have the stamina to click through all the "administrative units" to look at them all. (I was in a similar situation then with Pakistan as you with thousand of unnamed or misnamed images and being the only editor persistently categorizing Pakistan when I started. (Adding to that, I knew nothing about Pakistan then!) So we learn!
All the best, Krok6kola (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions! The idea of subdividing the trail category into ranger districts, rather than the other way round, is especially helpful. And I will work on adding some descriptive text for categories, and consider more the organizational structure. As you experienced with Category:Pakistan, there aren't many editors working on Arizona at the moment, and it's good to get input occasionally.
Regarding two other points, Arizona as a state does indeed have administrative districts in the form of counties, which have been listed out on both Wikipedia and on Commons. And as for ranger districts on Wikipedia, the article on Coconino National Forest does mention them, although not in great detail. I think some ranger districts probably would merit articles, not only in Arizona but in other states, but unfortunately I'm not up for that task at the moment as I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia protocols.
Best wishes, StellarD (talk)
Hi Krok6kola, upon reflection I've changed my thinking on this. Because the regions covered by the national forests are so large, and because people who know the area are familiar with the ranger districts, I think it makes more sense to categorize lakes, trails, campgrounds, wildfires, etc. in two concurrent systems: under the parent category of the relevant national forest, and under the relevant ranger district. In some national forests (like Category:Coronado National Forest IIRC), there may be a couple of trails with identical names, but in different mountain ranges in different districts.
In Category:Coconino National Forest, for example, I think in addition to the general category for Category:Trails in Coconino National Forest which lists all trails individually, there should be also a category for the trails in each individual ranger district; perhaps it could be categorized under 'Trails in Coconino National Forest by ranger district'. Someone who is hunting for images of hiking trails near Flagstaff (and who may not know the names of those trails) will not want to sort through the 50+ trails near Sedona, which is an hour's drive away, in another ranger district, and which has very different topography, flora, and even microclimate. It is often impossible to tell by the trail name alone where it is located, so I think the additional subdivision will be very helpful.
Regards, StellarD (talk)
I also think that listing trails additionally under Category:Trails in Arizona is redundant, because there are hundreds of trails, many of them similarly- or identically-named, and the state is so large. –StellarD (talk)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Ras67 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work![edit]

Hello,

I think you are doing a wonderful job in categorizing rock formations, locations etc. in Arizona. Thank you! Krok6kola (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! – StellarD (talk)
File:New Mexico Museum of Art - Santa Fe (5490186351).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!

Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Rotonda de los Hombres Ilustres, Guadalajara 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!


Another Believer (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandia High School[edit]

Thanks for your categorizing! But I couldn't find a connection between Sandia High School and John Gaw Meem. File:Sandia High School courtyard, Albuquerque NM.jpg - Faolin42 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Faolin42, I based that category on this source. If this is incorrect, please correct it, or let me know! Thanks, StellarD (talk)

NARA TIF files[edit]

Just for your information, with TIF files from NARA that have an identical JPG file, only the JPG needs to be categorized. (See Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs). This is not a "policy" per se, but I notice almost all editors seem to follow it. It helps to reduce the clutter in categories by removing identical images. If you look at the bottom of one of these files, e.g. File:YOUNG NAVAJO CYCLE RIDER - NARA - 544422.tif, you will see that both files are there, if you need to access the TIFF file for some reason. Regards, Krok6kola (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for the clarification. I'll start removing the identical images from the relevant categories again when I come to them.
Best, StellarD (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casa de la Condesa[edit]

Good day. Thank you for your work. What is your source for saying the building at 60 x 59 in Mérida is called "Casa de la Condesa", per your new category Category:Casa de la Condesa (Mérida, Yucatán)? I was not able to confirm in a short web search. I note another building in the city has (also?) used that name, and you created a category for it in 2015: Category:Casa de la Condesa. Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps multiple buildings called that? [1] -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for pointing that out. I had forgotten about the other category, and apologize for the confusion. I used this file name as a reference, but now I wonder if that file was named incorrectly. Spanish Wikipedia lists just one Casa de la Condesa, which does appear to be the building in the first category. INAH also has a directory of historic properties; when I have some more time I'll peruse a bit. It would be good to rename the category with the proper name of the building, if we can find it, rather than just Category:Burger King (Mérida Centro) or something similar. – StellarD (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll see if I can find a specific name for the building, or if not a street address. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the INAH catalogue link. I don't see it in either Calle 59 nor 60 Mérida listings. I think the street address for the building would be Calle 60 x 59 No 501 - am I remembering how to do street addresses in Mérida correctly? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking that up.
Regarding street addresses, it's been a few years since I was in Mérida, and I don't remember the standard either. Yesterday I created a category for this building, naming it according to the official plaque. However, I see that Spanish Wikipedia uses a different format, e.g. 'Calle 66 618 B, Centro'. Yet for another building category I created yesterday, Google maps lists the address as 'Calle 60 497 por 57 y 59, Centro'. And finally, the Museo de la Gastronomía Yucateca is listed on Google maps as 'Calle 62 #466 x 55 y 57, Centro'.
I think probably the last example is clearest, but it wouldn't match Spanish Wikipedia. Which do you prefer?
(BTW I think the category for La Bella Epoca should now be renamed, as the restaurant is apparently closed and the building is now for sale. I will take some time later to look for a specific building name.) StellarD (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category thing[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Museo_Costumbrista_de_Sonora&diff=686489221&oldid=442183463 : you added a category to the image, but didn't create the category. Hitting you up rather than fixing it myself in case this was part of a pattern over a series of edits to various files. - Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching this. I'd meant to create that category but forgot. I'll take care of it now. – StellarD (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date File:MexicoCityCathedralSter.jpg[edit]

Where did you find exact date information on File:MexicoCityCathedralSter.jpg? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise File:ZocaloMexicoCity1900.jpg your change of date contradicts the linked source photo. That one I'm reverting now to the decade unless you provide info showing the specific year. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got the information from the descriptions directly below the images. Probably 'Mexico City in the 1900s' is more appropriate, as you have already changed in the second image. – StellarD (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know, "c." or "circa" indicates an approximate date when the actual date is unknown. I'll restore the images to the decade category. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:MONROE HOTEL BAHRAIN 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

A1Cafel (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murals of Miami (26047235837).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!

A1Cafel (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: misscategorization in 2019[edit]

It was confusing to me when expanding w:Sacred Heart Church (Tombstone, Arizona) article today, but I eventually figured out you miss-categorized three photos (now in Category:Sacred Heart complex Rose Tree Courtyard) back in 2019. You incorrectly assumed the church courtyard's unusual "rose trees" were the same as w:World's Largest Rosebush (new wikipedia redirect created by me), at the w:Rose Tree Museum (new wikipedia redirect created by me) in Tombstone, which is covered by Commons' Category:Rose Tree Museum (created by you in 2018). Confusing that all were planted in 1880s in Tombstone, and look similar, and we (definitely including me) all make mistakes.

I don't understand your actually deciding to remove User:Ammodramus (the uploader)'s original category Category:Sacred Heart complex (Tombstone, Arizona), which was consistent with the photos' titles/descriptions, however, so I am providing this note as just a caution. Any which way, I'm glad you're contributing; there is a lot of categorizing to do, and to keep on re-doing.... --Doncram (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed confused. Thank you for the clarification and for fixing my mistake.
Regards, StellarD (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trains_cartoon.png Nightfgo1 (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


File:003849-014 EDIFICIOS DE LA AV. 20 DE NOVIEMBRE ENERO 14 1929 (31648040692).jpg is NOT from 1929[edit]

Hello. Twice I reverted you making File:003849-014 EDIFICIOS DE LA AV. 20 DE NOVIEMBRE ENERO 14 1929 (31648040692).jpg. As I noted in the edit comments, and is also noted on the talk page File talk:003849-014 EDIFICIOS DE LA AV. 20 DE NOVIEMBRE ENERO 14 1929 (31648040692).jpg, the stated "1929" date is certainly wrong. (If it is not obvious to you, take a look for example at Category:1929 automobiles - still boxy body shaped - compare with Category:1939 automobiles, steam-lined body shapes. The cars in the photo didn't exist yet in 1929.) So don't put the wrong date in categories just because someone put the wrong date in the title when all evidence shows it is wrong. Perhaps we should rename the photo? Discuss at File talk:003849-014 EDIFICIOS DE LA AV. 20 DE NOVIEMBRE ENERO 14 1929 (31648040692).jpg if you wish. Thanks for your attention and your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I missed your earlier reversions and edit comments. I wouldn't presume to second-guess the date in the title, or to try to date the cars in that photo, but trust your judgment on that – thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll leave a further comment on the relevant talk page.
Regards, StellarD (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Phoenix Murals (32962074405).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!

A1Cafel (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:MERCURE HOTEL.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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Durian fruit is not allowed in the hotel" (8644819430).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!

A1Cafel (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The State Council (47954035406).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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Bustan Palace Roundabout (47954039351).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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]