User talk:TadejM/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Himna

Well, le čevlje sodi naj Kopitar. Mail bom posredoval, ampak najprem me zanima kaj je razlika med himno in kulturno dediščino, ki se jo tudi ne sme uporabljati v komericialne namene, pa se vseeno pojavlja na Zbirki. Sam si enkrat napisal, da se na Zbirki upostevajo izkljucno zakoni iz domene avtorskega prava in ne dodatne omejitve postavljene z drugimi predpisi. Pišem ti pa tu, ker je razprava na zahtevku za izbris že tako ali tako precej nepregledna postala, ta tvoja pripomba o zakonu o drzavnih simbolih pa je se bolj tangencialna. --Miha (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for assessment

Hi Eleassar, I would like to ask you if could review: File:Serbs 30 collage 1.jpg? It appears to consist of a number of tentative license claims. One of the source images has even been removed but is still displayed in the collage. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 month

{{Blocked}} You have been warned several times that useless DRs are not appropriate.Yann (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you should also block me from breathing the air. Can you do this? Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Several years ago, I was blocked in the Croatian Wikipedia for 6 months just because I created a redirect from Trdinov vrh to Sveta Gera. This is the same case: political games, pov pushing, disregard for the quality of the project. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_review. As far as I'm concerned, this is a terrible block. Эlcobbola _talk 16:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also informed Jameslwoodward as an experienced administrator about the case. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support block This user has made it clear here and here that they have little interest following community consensus. This has made them an overall harm to the project. Hopefully after a month block and time to consider they can return and be involved more constructively. James Heilman, MD (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This block has nothing to do with this X-ray image (which you have been obsessing about and has been kept only because the uploader provided an appropriate permission, otherwise it would be deemed unfree), but has everything to do with how Yann acts in this project. Ever since this review of his actions he has been putting a spanner in the works: closing reasonabe DRs (see the comment by Jim) after less than an hour instead of seven days, and in general misinterpreting the copyright status of images. Now he blocked me for a month for no good reason, just because he lost his nerve. He has been asked by User:Sven Manguard to stay away from me, but has not listened to him, because he takes this personal and doesn't understand that administrators should act in a disinterested way. I'm disappointed that this project lets Yann act like this, not listening to advice by experienced administrators, taking revenge on individual editors and bullying them. You may expect me to post a review of his decisions after these three days (or a month if this should be so). He has already been warned in the past (besides the link above, also here). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It has to do with your behavior which includes that displaced during the X-ray image discussion and your refusal to abide by consensus. James Heilman, MD (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The rationale given is "Creating numerous senseless DRs after several warnings," without any evidence of this (in the form of diffs) and with several experienced administrators disagreeing that the DRs were senseless.[1] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ad Savin : this has already been discussed here. I've already explained that I have never reopened any case solely with the words "the deletion was wrong". I reopen them when the rationale is disputed, and I clearly state why it is disputed. It's not wrong to reopen cases when the rationale is disputed (see the discussion here). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ad Sporti:[2] "there were potentially 100s of free images deleted."...The presumption of innocence is a generally accepted standard in the world. Evidently not with you, in spite of the available evidence showing that the DRs have been mostly correct. This reminds me of the witch-hunt. I'd also like to see the evidence for "intentionally burry". The assumption of good faith does not seem to be one of your preferred guidelines. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eleassar, I've unblocked you per the discussion at COM:AN/B#Block review. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. I really appreciate that the community recognised the block was an unjust and wrong decision by a personally motivated administrator that should not have happened if there are some values in this project. All's well that ends well. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support block The amounts of DRs and FOP requests are huge, some having the most ridiculous and frivolous arguments. Take a look at this one Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biserica de lemn din Apatiu (2).JPG. All this activity is incredibly disruptive for many editors and articles, and many times succeeds in delete images which shouldn't be. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If people collect diffs we can head back to the admin noticeboard again. James Heilman, MD (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Photo deletion

I am wondering why you have requested to have my Miami Holocaust memorial photos deleted?

Because they are reproductions of a copyrighted sculptural work and there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for them; see Commons:FOP#United States. Thus they're copyright violations and therefore not in the scope of the project. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Obnašanje

Mislim, da si svojo priložnost za sofizme zamudil. Ampak, saj naslednje bojo kmalu. --Miha (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Imaš mogoče kakšno dobro fotografijo jablane? Sem danes opazil, da nimamo še nobene fotografije jablane iz Slovenije ... --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Haha, zdaj si me pa nasmejal. Ne žal nimam, pa bi prav rade volje bi naložil, lahko pa ustvariš kategorijo cvetovi breskev v Sloveniji :) Himna je ze nekaj drugega kot jablana, ki je pač posod bolj ali manj enaka. --Miha (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Pravzaprav mislim, da nekaj iz domačega travnika celo imam, vendar ni na prenosnem disku. --Miha (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sem naložil dve, posneti z mobilcem. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Super. --Miha (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013...

Hi Eleassar, you haved tagged some files of User:Christopher Schwarzkopf (WMDE)] today with "no permission".

You are completly right with these files:

• File:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013 74.jpg
• File:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013 73.jpg
• File:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013 31.jpg
• File:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013 31.jpg

I have explained the uploader the background of the needed permission per email. I know him, he is staff member of Wikimedia Deutschland, organizator of the Wikimedia Diversity Conference.

But for these files I see no copyrighted material:

• File:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013 27.jpg
• File:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013 60.jpg
• File:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013 83.jpg

Only a group of keywords, typically written down after a conference session slot. The threshold of originality‎ is not given here in my eyes. Therefore I have removed the "no permission" tag.

Hopefully my view and explanation is OK for you too :-) Raymond 16:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was not completely sure about these files, so hoped that someone will come along and review this. Thank you for the review. I think this is correct now. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for pointing out that there's no FOP in Ethiopia, and so some pics might need to get deleted. Just FYI, there was not such note when I uploaded some of them, AFAIK. Best, --Elitre (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Mozambique copyright law

Hello Eleassar, I would like to know what makes you so certain that colonial works of architecture are not exempt from that policy. You said: (cf. Art. 3, c, d). Well, look at what c) says: "works published in Mozambique or works first published abroad and issued in Mozambique". Mozambique as a country only exists after 1975 or so, everything published there before that date, works of architecture included, was published in Portugal. Portugal is the country of origin of those works. But I wouldn't object to Mozambican protection if the law was worded in a way such as "works of architecture existent in Mozambique". But no, they chose the word "erected in" (same in Portuguese). Those works were not erected in Mozambique.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, since the DR was hastily closed and we had not the opportunity to discuss this properly, I opened a case for undeletion here. If you could participate on the discussion I would appreciate.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Poststamps of Belarus

Because stamps are the exception in Belarusian copyright law and are considered public domain, I ask you to no more requesting of delete of them.--Хомелка (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a similar case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamps of the United Nations, 2010-Slovenia.jpg‎. An institution or a government can make its work pd, but can't give reproductions of third-party works to the public domain. See also for example this article (provided by Stefan4) about how a sculptor successfully sued the post in the United States due to the appearance of one of his sculptures on a stamp. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It is only your opinion. No consensus on this. If you want, broached, and while he was not engaged in, please amateur. And I call on the conversation if he will not forget--Хомелка (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So your opinion is that the decision about currency images in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bayterek was wrong? The stamp issue seems to be similar to that one. Which Belarusian deletion request are you talking about? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:MotorHeadLemiBelgradeLive.jpg

I don't understand, this is own work. --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This file has been ascribed to a third party (a photographer whose name differs from yours) at its description page and there is no evidence that the photograph would be your own work. For it to be kept, we need an OTRS-confirmed permission by the photographer. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Baile Felix - George Enescu.jpg

Warum diese Datei gelöscht wurde. Ich verstehe nicht. Zwiadowca ²¹ 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Es gibt keine Panoramafreiheit in Rumänien. Da das Werk war von ein Bildhauer der stirbt weniger als 70 Jahre zuvor gemacht, es ist noch immer urheberrechtlich geschützt. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TadejM. You have new messages at DarwIn's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

a favour

hello! would you be so kind to add the category:Ukrainian FOP cases in such cases? it is kind of important, and it is kind of impossible to monitor all the deletion requests... --アンタナナ 08:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do it. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks a lot --アンタナナ 08:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Two deleted images

Dear Eleassar,

You put up two images that I had taken for deletion: File:Thor statue.JPG and File:Freyja statue1.JPG and I would kindly ask you to undelete them. I have been in contact with the museum and the images are enhanced copies of old Viking chess figures. The museum owns the rights of the artworks and they have, after an explanation what this would mean, said that they are willing to send a formal OTRS email if that is needed, but I hope I don't have to waste their and my time with that :-). Best, Jopparn (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't (only administrators can). Try contacting the closing administrator or post a request for undeletion at COM:UDR. Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Plants_of_Slovenia

Category:Plants_of_Slovenia 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!

Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:China gift to the UN.JPG

Can u further elaborate why did u delete this image? It wasn't from a museum, it was from the UN HQ in NYC. Mr. Kate (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As the United Nations headquarters are located in the United States, the US law applies. There is no FOP for modern statues in the United States. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Spruce in Estonia

Happy new year!

Thank you for co-operation and a happy new year!

This spruce grows in Estonia. I have seen it from train window with my own eyes. Taivo (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. All the best to you too. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Raven Banner Image

I refer to the deletion of the raven banner last year.

This affected me indirectly because I had, in good faith, used the raven symbol for my blog logo. When I saw that the commons deleted what I took to be in the public domain, I consequently also removed my own logo which used that as (my own) derivative work.

I wish to be on the right side of the law, and would ask you (since you were the initiative taker in removing the aforesaid images) whether what I have done is a) 100% legitimate as I believe, and b) whether the raven image I myself have produced can be considered "free".

As I explain on my blog page http://yorkshireviking.cqd.nu/the-logo-returns/ I took the image that this commons still has of the coin (in the public domain), printed it out on to paper (which I have kept), and then traced the image on to a transparent piece of paper (which I have also kept). Then from the tracing I scanned my raven, and superimposed it on to the other elements of the logo I wished to have on my blog. As an extra precaution against confusion with the American flag product (the derivative work I believe you alluded to) I reversed the direction of my bird's flight.

So, I have now returned my logo, which I am assuming really IS mine as a derivative work, using the an image that demonstrably IS in the public domain?

Would my raven image (not the logo) be of interest to you here, and is it your opinion that I am now OK with my own derivative work logo? When the commons removed the first image, I removed as said my own to be on the safe side.

I am a new user of this wiki, and have only signed up so that I could contact you. I do appreciate your advice on this matter.

In my opinion, it is ok. You may wish to consult the deleting administrator too. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sava River Basin.png

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sava River Basin.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this project page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

VaKol (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I've commented at the proposal's site. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

pl wiki image

I am not an admin on pl wiki so I cannot check it; however if you post on Commons:Bar, a pl wiki admin will surely check it out for you. Let me know if you need further assistance, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Criteria?

[3] Please see the description. "Lonchars on cannabis". No source. Does this fit any criteria? Kubura (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:CroataČohašOrezano.jpg. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 3⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Gornja Radgona

Hallo Eleassar, ich habe noch für jeden einzelnen Kopf des Denkmals File:Gornja Radgona 7040.JPG ein Foto. ISt das erlaubt hochzuladen oder wird das wieder gelöscht? Diese würden sicher in Commons:Wiki Loves Public Art fallen. --gruß K@rl (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, Karl. Ich denke die Köpfe in dieses Foto sind dunkel genug dass die individuele Details des Denkmals sind nich erkennbare und also es ist ok für Commons. Es tut mir viel leid für die Löschunge, aber es gibt keine Panoramafreiheit in Slowenien und Sie wissen dass wir können nur freie Datei erhalten. Aber viele Danke fur alle diese Bilder des Gornja Radgona. Gruß, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Eleassar, danke für die Antwort, aber meine Frage war, ob ich Fotos der Köpfe im Detail hochladen darf?. Aber ich werde ein Beispiel hochladen, dann können wir über dieses sprechen. --gruß K@rl (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ich habe ein Muster File:Gornia-Radgona-Franc-Simonic 7400.JPG hochgeladen - ist das gültig? --K@rl (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Nein, leider nicht. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Template spomenikSVN

Hallo Eleasser, ich wollte den Baustein auch auf deutsch übersetzen, da merkte ich, dass der Link http://www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/min_eng/legislation/CHPA.pdf nicht funktiert. Kannst du diesen vielleicht reparieren. danke K@rl (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've replaced the link with a link to the page as saved by the Wayback Machine. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Space Invader! (2763155347).jpg

Hi, this is just to remind you that you had offered to move the file once the DR is closed. It's closed. Rybec (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've renamed the file. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Request: Slovenian for Template:Closed cap

Hi, Eleassar! I notice that there is a new version of Template:Closed cap available. Are you interested in adding Slovenian for it?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added the Slovene translation. Thanks for the notification. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's be polite

Hey, may I ask you very politely what was the big idea about deleting my picture of th Skalholt Sarcophage in Iceland ? This was the burial of Bishop Páll Jónsson (1155-1211). Did it especialy annoy you ? (as it seems). But for heaven's sake : WHY ??? Oblomov2 (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure which image you're discussing (a link would be welcome). It was probably out of scope as not free or for some other reason. If you think it falls in the scope, please feel welcome to open an undeletion request at COM:UDR. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Korpič-križ

Treba je vprašati, kdaj je umrl tisti Korpič. Ne vem če zdaj moram iti v Šulince, čeprav ni tak daleč od nas. Doncsecz (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear TadejM,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Аnas acuta shot in the place where geocoded. --Mile (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Verified User

Hi! Do you know if we have a template that would indicate a verified user? There's one on DE-wiki. I can't find anything here. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know about such a template. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dang. It is about this user: User_talk:Campari_Deutschland_GmbH. The account is verified by email on DE-wiki. How should we handle such professional accounts? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of a pic

You stated that the File:Major Cities of Europe conference 2013 in Ljubljana.jpg is "Non-free photograph. Eleassar (t/p) 17:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)"

Why do you think? I made this picture and I uploaded it and so it can be used under Creative Commons.

HatschiKa (talk)

Sorry, I don't remember this image. If it is truly your own image, please take it to COM:UDR to get it undeleted. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Something is wrong

Hello Eleassar, recently you have proposed a file File:Lord Shiva.jpg for deletion. But your reasons were unclear you have stated that the file is non free. Now tell me how can you claim that it is non free. You haven't even provided a link to verify that it is non free. I have seen similar cases on your talk page above. I think you are nominating files randomly without proper research. Now I'm not a steward that I can warn you. But I'm requesting you not to nominate files like this. It is good to see that you are working against copyright issues but nominating files cluelessly is not a good idea. So, I request you to restore the file to normal without telling me to take this matter at COM:UDR. Thank you. Jim Cartar (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

See my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lord Shiva.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello talk page stalker Jameslwoodward now please see my comments. Jim Cartar (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of the ecclesiastical coats of arms

Hello Eleassar!

Los escudos de armas que usted marcó para ser eliminados, contienen elementos de diseño genérico, como una estrella o una cruz. Los elementos externos, como el sombrero y las borlas, son de diseño propio. Pudo haber hablado con migo antes de marcar mis escudos, hubiera resuelto cualquier duda.

Online translation; The coats of arms that you marked for deletion, contain elements of generic design, as a cross or a star. External elements, such as hat and tassels, are of our own design. He could have spoken with me before dialing my shields, would have resolved any doubts. --SajoR (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of the individual elements may be generic, but the overall combination is certainly not. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eleassar, so if you think your in your right, please ask for the deletation of Pope Francis CoA (on commons), who presents exactly the same problems. For Bishops, ask them if you want, but generally when you speak with them, they are really happy of the rendition and of the work we do on they CoA. Mathieu C. (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Per Commons:Coats of arms, the overall combination (composition) follows the blazon, it is precisely that which remains PD. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure such a blason was ever published (any ref for this claim?) and also don't think all the elements are generic enough to be uncopyrightable. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This also means that a Coat of Arms inspired from another (found on the net), with the same composition, but with a different interpretation, is not a "derivative work". This was written by administrator Micheletb. The elements are quite common heraldic charges. Now, if you think that Micheletb's view is incorrect, this really needs to be taken to the Village pump or a similar discussion space, as these kinds of recreations are a widespread and established practice. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you have to argue that it's a "different interpretation"... In my opinion, the coats of arms are so much similar to each other that it is hardly. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

SajoR took the composition, and filled it in with elements and external ornaments of his own design. Compare araldicavaticana with File:Coat of arms of Franc Rode.svg, for example. You could argue that he took the diagonal lining from araldicavaticana, but that doesn't pass the threshold of originality (and it is a highly standardised concept of heraldry). Everything else is clearly a different interpretation and style. I could (given the time, which I do not have) make a highly stylised art deco interpretation of this coat of arms, but if I deviate from the composition, it is no longer correct. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Monaco

As you are professionnal investigator and shower of violation of copyright, please can you treat this , clearly copyright violation of this one : version official of the prince and violation of the law of the principality of Monaco : article number 716 :

Loi n. 716 du 18/12/1961 tendant à assurer la protection d'armoiries, emblèmes, devises ou insignes officiels Article 1er .- ( Loi n° 951 du 19 avril 1974 )

Nul ne peut faire usage des armoiries, emblème, devise, insigne ou sceau du Prince s'il ne s'est muni au préalable d'une autorisation délivrée par l'autorité compétente.

La même interdiction s'applique à la reproduction, en vue d'un usage public dans un intérêt commercial, des armoiries, devises, emblèmes, insignes ou sceaux de l'État ou d'un État étranger, d'une institution publique d'un État ou d'une organisation internationale gouvernementale ou non gouvernementale dont la protection est assurée soit par la voie d'une réglementation particulière à Monaco ou dans le pays du siège, soit en vertu d'une convention internationale.

Article 2 .- ( Loi n° 1.062 du 28 juin 1983 )

Les infractions à la présente loi seront punies d'un emprisonnement de un mois à six mois et de l'amende prévue au chiffre 2 de l'article 26 du Code pénal ou de l'une de ces deux peines seulement.

Le jugement de condamnation ordonnera la suppression des armoiries, emblèmes, devises, insignes, sceaux ou signes reproduits contrairement aux dispositions de l'article premier ci-dessus et, s'il y a lieu, la confiscation des objets sur lesquels ils figurent.

Article 3 .- La présente loi sera applicable dans les six premiers mois qui suivront sa promulgation.

Good luck to prove that not a copyright violation! So please can you ask for a quick deletation, I ask you because I'm not familiar with this kind of procedure. And I not really speak a good english, that's the reason I asked Tom Lemmens to explain you what you're wrong in the ecclesiastical case. Best regards Mathieu C. (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, which act are these citations from? Is it a copyright act or an act regulating the usage of official symbols of the state? If the latter, we're only concerned about the copyright in regard to DRs; see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. What does the copyright act of Monaco state about official works? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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:

• File:Dragon bridge in Ljubljana (2).jpg

Yours sincerely, Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Suppression of pictures.

Hello, Is-it possible to have explications about the suppression of some of my pictures in Uzbekistan ? Thank you, --Paul Munhoven (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not sure which ones do you have in mind, but in general the reasons are written in the relevant discussion pages. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Good morning, I don't know where are the explications and I don't understand what do you meen. Have a good day, --Paul Munhoven (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I could help you with specific files in this regard if you listed their names. In general, though, files have been deleted as non-free due to COM:FOP#Uzbekistan. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Libya images

Hello,

Please restore the Libyan pictures which I uploaded that you deleted. The copyright law of Libya is only 50 years and the colonial period in Libya ended in 1948, hence all pictures first taken / published in Libya during the colonial period expired in 1998 or beforehand. Jaw101ie (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, please take it to COM:UDR. If everything checks out, they'll be undeleted. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/123343313

Hi, why did you rename this image? Please always specify a criterion in the log entry! Greetings,    FDMS  4    21:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The criteria per COM:MOVE were 2 and 6, to allow for easier recognition of the depicted subjects in categories. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you (I couldn't either), but both do not apply. "City bike" is sufficiant (not perfect) for an image of only a city bike, and criterion #6 only applies to files which are in use in templates.    FDMS  4    21:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The image shows more than a city bike. It shows a specific city bike at a specific place, and 'city bike' is certainly too vague to allow for an easy identification of the place. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Still criterion #2 says (in english) that a name has to be completely meaningless, like for example File:22785u9ob807b3c4f4.jpg or File:DSC_1342.jpg. I wouldn't name an image Ljubjana (or Vienna respectively) citybike myself, but please respect the uploader's choice of name as long as no rename criterion applies. BTW, your de language skills are contradictory in the language versions of your userpage.    FDMS  4    22:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit of nonsense. We get tons of images named in the pattern LjubljanaAGD34lk234'... thought not completely meaningless, they're still more or less meaningless for any serious usage (recognition of the subject, sorting etc.) Has there been any discussion about this? Thanks for the hint. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

LjubljanaAGD34lk234' could rather be considered (completely) meaningless than Ljubljansko mestno kolo.jpg, but in both cases I would recommend asking the uploader if he/she agrees with renaming certain files in a certain way (which some uploader do and some do not) because then of course criterion #1 applies. Opinions on filenames differ; while I personally prefer clean and descriptive filenames as well, some uploaders argue that reusers rather find files and identify their content via categories and thumbnails.    FDMS  4    22:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on my experience, in both cases a clear descriptive name is of significant help. In general, in most cases I do respect the naming chosen by the uploader, if it is just not too generic (an opt-out version seems better here given the large number of uploaders). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone accused you of "copyright paranoia", so this german thread might be of interest to you. ireas (→ not my opinion …) wrote (… but my translation): CC licenses (f. ex. CC-by-sa 3.0 de, § 4 c ii.) require providing the title of the [reused] work. If no title is explicitly stated, it is the filename. It should not get modified offhandedly.    FDMS  4    11:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't find this in the legal code.[4] Can you provide the exact citation? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he refers to If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must […] provide […] the title of the Work if supplied …    FDMS  4    12:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure this refers to file names? If so, it would prevent us from renaming any CC-licensed file uploaded directly here, and we should implement different guidelines for CC-licensed, PD-licensed, GFDL-licensed etc. files. It's totally impractical. Or at least we should add to the guideline the notice that the old file name must always be cited at the description page (which is also what I'm going to do in the future). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is one interpretation, but I doubt there is consensus for it.    FDMS  4    15:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Stampersgat and Steenbergen

Hi Eleassar

Stampersgat and Steenbergen are both located in the Netherlands (province Noord-Brabant), so I don't understand your deletion nomination FOP Belgium. Michielverbeek (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, apologies for bothering you then. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

a favour

hello! would you be so kind to add the category:Ukrainian FOP cases in your nominations of Ukrainian FOP cases? that would be really helpful --アンタナナ 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Apiales in Slovenia

Category:Apiales in Slovenia 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 category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 17:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Apiales_in_Slovenia

Apiales in Slovenia 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!

   FDMS  4    18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Geslo

Zdravo! Jaz sem Doncsecz. Izgubilo se je moje geslo in e-pošta, ne morem se prijaviti. Kaj bom delal? 84.1.181.43 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Zdravo, če si v nastavitvah vpisal e-poštni naslov, klikni Special:PasswordReset. Če e-poštnega naslova nisi vpisal, se bojim, da kaj dosti ni mogoče storiti. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nisem dodal e-pošte. Zato nimam že gesla, ker me je common silil nekoč, naj dodam drugo geslo, ker so prišli hackerji. In se je tisto geslo izgubilo. Administratorja mi treba. 46.107.103.118 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on the scope of file renaming criterion 2

Pursuant to the closing of the RFC "Proposed overhaul of the "Which files should be renamed?" section", a second RfC has been opened at Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 specifically to address the scope of criterion 2, which currently reads "To change from a completely meaningless name to a name that describes what the image displays." Since you participated in the initial discussion, I am notifying you of the follow-up RfC.

Please note that I fully anticipate that the first few days will see a number of additional options proposed, so it may be a good idea to check back periodically on the RfC.

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Delaying my files File:Odranci SLO Dreifaltigkeitskirche Richtung Osten.JPG and Westen

Dear Eleassar, you delayed my own made pictures from Odranci, please tell me why. Did I made any mistakes? Thank you for information. Kindly regards --Christian1311 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you probably meant "deleted". The reason was that the architect of the building died after 1945, which means that the building is still copyrighted and thus can be freely photographed only for personal usage: any commercial reusage of such photos is not allowed according to the Slovene law. Here at Commons, all files must be free for any usage according to the US law and the law of the country of origin of the photographs. See also Commons:Licensing, Commons:Freedom of panorama#Slovenia and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Holy Trinity church, Odranci. Best, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Please help me by opening this link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harshita_Gaur_2014-06-16_13-32.jpg and by checking this image.I think that this is copyrighted work and should be removed from Wikimedia Commons.I am not sure so as administrator i asked you for your help.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.--Param Mudgal (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Re. File:Ljubljana2 092.JPG

Hi, Eleassar. Empty categories or a single file should be deleted if possible. Allforrous (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Strunjanski križ

File:Beli križ pri Strunjanu.jpg ni slikana v naselju Beli križ/Croce Bianca. Na sliki je Strunjanski križ, ki se nahaja v neposredni bližini romarske cerkev Marijinega prikazovanja v Strunjanu in ne spada pod Portorož. Križ so leta 2012, ob obletnici Marijinega prikazovanja, prenovili, predvsem podstavek, zato je sedanja podoba križa drugačna od podobe na tej sliki iz 2007. Gl. tule. Zmedo pa dela tudi ime datoteke - gre le za križ bele barve in ne za ime naselja. Zato te prosim za preimenovanje in vrnitev kategorije Strunjan, v katero so že umeščene ostale slike tega križa. Tnx, ℳ₪Zaplotnik^contribs 20:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hvala za pojasnilo. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Image has copyright problems

Please take a look at this image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katchy.jpg . This file seems to be copyrighted.Please delete it from commons.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing your own uploads

Hi Eleassar, please note that you may not review your own uploads as you did here. JurgenNL (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please review

Would this file File:Blou Bulle Rugby Unie (BBRU) vier 75 jaar, 1938-2013.jpg be ok, or not? JMK (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends at how long ago the creator of the logo died (was it more than 50 years)? See Commons:Copyright rules by territory#South Africa. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Occupation

Aloha! I added producer to the list and noticed afterwards that film producer is already in the list. Did you look for this kind of producer? Or do we need to expand the producer entries? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking for producer in general (TV, film, radio). Thanks for asking and for adding the relevant entry. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes you need the occupation a littler broader. Makes sense in my little book. The communist is a little odd. See your edit request. :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lock Symbol

Why did you make the Lock Symbol?

Sorry? I'm not sure what you have in mind. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nova uporabniška stran

Zdravo! Ker ni bilo mogoče dobiti novo geslo, zaradi tega sem tvoril novo stran. Samo upam, da mi ne bodo tožili, da sem Sock-puppet. Če bi možno bilo združiti staro in novo stran, tako pa v enem mestu bodo stare datoteke. DoncseczII (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

pictures "odranci slowenia"

hi eleassar, you deleted my own-made pictures on July 2014 from odranci without a comment. i wrote you on August 1st for asking why. I received no answer till now. this pictures are my own-made pictures and there is in my opinion no reason for deleting them. please answer.--Christian1311 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Christian1311: . The subject was copyrighted architecture the photographs of which can't be freely used as demanded by our policies. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Slovenia. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eleassar, thank you for your quick answer and for your information. I didn't know about the freedom of panorama#slowenia and even about the fact, that the architect is still alive... I will try to become better... kindly regards --Christian1311 (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the architect is still alive, but he was certainly alive in 1945 and later, because these works date from later than 1944. Only works of architects who died in 1944 or before are in the public domain. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ljubljana - Poštna hranilnica (Cankarjeva 18) - figura dajanja (Ivan Jurkovič, 1927-30).jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ljubljana - Poštna hranilnica (Cankarjeva 18) - figura dajanja (Ivan Jurkovič, 1927-30).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!

1989 01:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy new yeaaar, a 2015 of good things, wishes happy holidays --Pava (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

unsplash

Misliš, da je tole vse iz Slovenije? --Sporti (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Vse ne (npr. [5], [6]), veliko pa, in to odličnih slik ... --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ja odlične, škoda le, da ni opisa ali vsaj lokacije. Tako tudi iskalnik po strani ni uporaben in sem jih našel bolj naključno. Kaj še prepoznaš poleg LJ, bohinjskega j. in Velike planine? --Sporti (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Iz Slovenije so pmm:

• Bohinjsko jezero: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
• Golica: [15], [16], [17]
• Železniški most (napis v slovenščini): [18]
• Arboretum Volčji Potok: [19], [20], [21], [22]

*Tipična primorska pokrajina: [23], [24], [25] (najbolj verjetno tudi ostale)

• Ruševine: [26] - grad Kamen
• Fotografije hribov, gozda in narave sploh: [27] (slovenska markacija) (pmm so vse slike hribov iz Slovenije), [28] (kamnita brv je v Rakovem Škocjanu), [29] (markacija tudi tukaj), Jalovec s Slemena, [30] & [31] (Zelenci), [32] (tipična gorenjska pokrajina, Martuljek? Rateče), [33] & [34] (Breznica pri Žirovnici), [35] (Dvojno jezero - Dolina Triglavskih jezer), slike Kongresnega trga, Velika planina, [36] (že naloženo kot File:LogarskaValley5.jpg - lokacija je napačna), [37], [38].

Lahko pa mu tudi pošlješ mail. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: Povleci sliko in jo spusti v Google, zraven dodaj opis Slovenia. Morda dobiš kakšen namig. Npr. za sliko File:LogarskaValley5.jpg sem ugotovil, da prikazuje Jezersko (prva "podobna slika: [39]). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Na vrhu je link do njegovega facebook profila, kjer je prestavil nekatere od slik tudi z lokacijo, za železniški most npr. piše Slovenski Javornik. --Sporti (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Aha. Nekatere slike so očitno iz Toskane. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

V glavnem, s te FB strani se da še marsikaj ugotoviti; za hribe glej tudi [40]. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Kaj pa že naložena File:Mystic-Valley-and-Hills.jpg? Sicer sem naložil vse zgoraj omenjene in še nekaj, ki se jih uspel prepoznati, našel sem pa še [41]. Se pa stran še dopolnjuje, [42] še včeraj ni bilo. --Sporti (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Super! 'Mistic Valley' je Ljubljanska kotlina z Žirovnico na levi, Lescami na desni. V ozadju je planota Jelovica s kamnolomom Kamna Gorica. Hribček je pa ledeniška morena - Obla gorica. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Salina di Sicciole (9239113899).jpg

Hi Eleassar - this pic really doesn't serve any useful purpose in any of the various bird-related categories; it is far too small and insignificant to have even the remotest hope of identification - do you really want it to be the sole image remaining forever in Category:Unidentified birds? Every other image ever added there has either been identifiable to a more precise subcategory, or else removed from the category and not continuously spammed back in again. I'd suggest instead finding some more useful categories related to the wooden structure in the foreground; I don't know what it is for so can't suggest good ideas here, but this is the obvious subject of the photo, and not that tiny bird in the top left corner. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It serves a useful purpose in the category Category:Animals of the Sečovlje Salina, because it is the only photo showing a bird flying over them that we currently have, despite the salina being an ornithological hotspot. The wooden structure deserves a category, but so do the bird and the salt pans behind it. I hope that you can understand that photos can be valuable from different aspects, not just what is in the front, and the photographer chose to take the image with a particular background at a particular moment. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

A tebi je tole v interesu da se obriše slika stopnišča, naj bi bila frej licenca v 2016. --Mile (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Money

What are the copyright rules for money in Slovenia? There's no section at COM:CUR. Is File:Slovenia.jpg allowed on Commons, or should it be deleted? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Money of Slovenia is copyrighted; see [43], [44], [45], and other old deletion discussions. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, so DR started. You could maybe add a section at COM:CUR. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started the section; see Commons:Currency#Slovenia. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pavla vas, Sevnica - cerkev sv. Jakoba (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI now. --Hubertl 08:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Becoming admin again

Hi Eleassar,

I am always looking for good candidates for adminship. I just closed a couple of your DR's and I wonder why you haven't asked your admin mop. You seem to be active enough annd I do think that you can use the tools. What do you say? If you want I can nominate you. Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite; I have no problem if you nominate me. I'd use my rights primarily to move deleted images to other wikiprojects where they can be hosted as well as do other chore work. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I worte a draft: User:Natuur12/Eleassar. Could you please let me know if you agree with this statement and if you want to add your own statement before or after I move it to the correct namespace? Natuur12 (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. In general, I agree with the statement, and have also added a short comment. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The RFA is now live: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Eleassar. Good luck! Natuur12 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

---

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

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

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

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

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

odder (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-welcome . Alan ^(talk) 20:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

+1 Welcome Back! . --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! :) --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Preusmeritev

Živjo, ker si tukajšnji administrator, bi imel eno prošnjo. Slika File:Archangel at 10th anniversary of Slovene Wikipedia in Cyberpipe, Ljubljana.jpg je bila na mojo željo preimenovana, je pa pri tem nastala preusmeritev, kjer je zopet navedeno osebno ime. Ali je mogoče, da se preusmeritev izbriše? Hvala v naprej za odg. in lp, --Archangel (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Urejeno. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:15-11-25-Maribor Inenstadt-RalfR-WMA 4301.jpg

Can you have a look? Thx --A.Savin 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ljubljana

Za cerkve v Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ljubljana sem vse preveril z Atlasom okolja, da se nahajajo v Ljubljani, tako da menim, da sodijo v kategorijo. --Janezdrilc (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fino, se strinjam. Predlagam samo poenotenje imen po zgledu 'Visitation of the Virgin Mary Church (Rožnik, Ljubljana)‎' ali 'St. Vitus's Parish Church in Šentvid (Ljubljana)‎', kjer je treba razločitve. Prva varianta se mi zdi boljša, ker je bolj jedrnata in bližje splošnemu vzorcu. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ja, lahko je prva varianta. Pač naj bo čimbolj poenoteno z "mednarodnim" zbirkinim poimenovanjem. --Janezdrilc (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Kako je kaj zdaj z manjkajočimi cerkvami v kategoriji? --Janezdrilc (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Saj so vse še tam, le nekatere sem prestavil v kategorijo 'Category:Parish churches in Ljubljana'. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Nekaj čez 40 jih je bilo notri. Nekaterim si odstranil kategorijo. --Janezdrilc (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Npr.? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

V "Uporabnikovih prispevkih" sem jih našel od 17:51, 28. januar 2016 navzdol (Ctrl + F). --Janezdrilc (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Lahko podaš konkreten primer (npr. tukaj sem kategorijo odstranil zato, ker je cerkev vključena že v kategorijo 'Category:Baroque churches in Ljubljana in v kategorijo Category:Churches in the Center District, Ljubljana)? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Aja, zdaj vidim. Baročne cerkve so odstranjene, ker je že kategorija uvrščena pod rimskokatoliške cerkve. Čeprav, ve vem, če je to ravno dober način kategorizacije, ker se potem v kategoriji po veroizpovedi znajdejo podkategorije po slogu in upravnem statusu (Parish churches in Ljubljana). To potem deluje precej zmedeno in nepregledno. --Janezdrilc (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

V principu bi morale biti vse slike kategorizirane po slogu, lokaciji itd., kategorija Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ljubljana pa naj bi bila vrhnja kategorija, ki ne bi vsebovala posameznih cerkva. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh, to je pa čisto drugače, kot sem si jaz predstavljal. Jaz sem mislil, da se vsaka cerkev uvrsti po slogu, času nastanka, kraju, veroizpovedi, namembnosti (župnijska, frančiškanska, pokopališka...) pa to je to. Ne razumem čisto, kako naj bi bila Roman Catholic v Ljubljani krovna. Ali naj bi vsebovala še sama podkategorije po slogu, času nastanka...? --Janezdrilc (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Tako nekako. Seveda je stvar dogovora, kako natančno bomo kategorizirali. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ne vem no. Meni se zdi opredelitev po veroizpovedi samo ena izmed opredelitev, poleg tega si tudi težko predstavljam, da bi za Cerkve v Celju, Mariboru, Piranu in drugod delali posebne podkategorije. --Janezdrilc (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

V redu. Torej vse cerkve ostanejo v kategoriji, razen tistih, ki so župnijske? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

V bistvu bi potem poleg župnijskih morali dodati še na primer bazilike in stolnice, kar pa je tako ali tako že posebna opredelitev po tipu. Tako se mi zdi boljše tudi župnijske izključiti iz kategorije. --Janezdrilc (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Se strinjam. Po drugi strani so vse stolnice tudi župnijske cerkve, drugih župnijskih cerkva razen rimskokatoliških pa v Ljubljani tudi ni, tako da 'Parish churches in Ljubljana' lahko ostane podkategorija kategorije 'Roman Catholic churches in Ljubljana' in podvajanje ni potrebno. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)