User talk:TadejM/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Category:Grasslands_of_Slovenia

Category discussion warning

Category:Grasslands_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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

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

Themightyquill (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dobova train station

Hi Eleassar, as you are the expert for railways in Slovenia, I'm sure will be able to help ;-) Tonight I have categorized some pictures from Category:Migrants in Slovenia to proper railway categories. At first I wasn't sure 100% which station they were from, so I put those those pictures to Category:Train stations in Slovenia, maybe you can have a look there. It is 23 (out of 25) pictures, I think. By now I am sure they are from Dobova. Nevertheless, it seems to me that those pictures were not from the public part of Dobova railway station but from some kind of special platforms at the back of the station (close to "ulica 15. aprila"). Do you think we should put the pictures to Category:Dobova train station or rather some subcategory to make clear that it's obviously not the public part of the station? And if yes, what would you suggest for this subcategory? I don't really have an idea. Regards and thanks in advance, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleeblatt187: . These are very interesting images also from my point of view (as a citizen of Slovenia). I think they could be put to 'Migrants at the Dobova Railway Station' or, even better, 'Transport of migrants at the Dobova Railway Station'. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your reply! Category:Transport of migrants at the Dobova Railway Station probably might have been the best, nevertheless I decided for Category:Migrants at Dobova train station now. This way we are in line with both parent categories, I would like to avoid a category discussion. I have already recategorized those interesting images now. Regards from Germany, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:0794 Glasgow Trams c1902.theora.ogv

File:0794 Glasgow Trams c1902.theora.ogv has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— Racconish ☎ 13:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Eleassar, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2016 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Grossmann

Glede na to, da je umrl leta 1929 in bil pri filmih sam za vse, bi morali biti njegovi trije filmi v javni lasti? Na žalost pa niso nikjer objavljeni samostojno, našel sem le dokumentarec [1] in [2]. --Sporti (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Se strinjam. Nekaj je tukaj, sicer pa tudi sam ne najdem kaj dosti. Lahko, da se da v kakšnem muzeju kaj izposoditi ali ogledati (pa potem posnameš). --Eleassar (t/p) 11:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nebotičnik

Slike Nebotičnika: ali nismo to lani imeli, so bile pod zaščito do konca leta 2015 ? Spet sem dobil obvestilo. --Mile (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imaš prav, umikam predlog. Leta 2017 pride v javno last. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Eleassar!

Happy New Year!

Eleassar, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Dear @Hedwig in Washington: , thanks for the nice New Year's card. Happy New Year 2017 to you too! --Eleassar (t/p) 22:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletions

Hi, After undeleting files, could you please fix the DR, i.e. [3]. Best regards, and Happy New Year! Yann (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the following years, I will do so. Have a Happy New Year you too. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Še nekaj sem jih našel od Zmajskega mostu, ki so se zgubile:

--Sporti (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urejeno. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

License plates of Slovenia

Malo sortiram Category:License plates of Slovenia, pa me zanima glede opozorila noaploads, kaj se sme nalagat in kaj ne v tem primeru. --Janezdrilc (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glej Commons:Deletion requests/License plates of Slovenia. Tole kategorijo bi bilo morda smiselno v celoti obnoviti. Yerpo? --Eleassar (t/p) 20:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Čeprav so nalepke in grbi avtorsko zaščiteni (ker niso navedeni v členu 9)? --Janezdrilc (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Čakam na Jernejev komentar. Yerpo? --Eleassar (t/p) 20:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ne vem če razumem čisto dobro, zakaj misliš, da bi jih lahko obnovili. — Yerpo Eh? 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pred časom smo se pogovarjali, da so grbi informacije uradnega značaja in da kot take ne morejo biti avtorsko zavarovane. Če se prav spomnim... --Eleassar (t/p) 06:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cats for Discussion

Please see: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:History of buildings in Ankara. --E4024 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Eleassar, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Croatia

In this particular case your rationale for deletion was incorrect: it is not true that "the freedom of panorama applies only for outside-placed works". In Croatia, FoP pertains to all works "which are permanently located on streets, squares, parks or other places that are accessible to the public".[4] (emphasis mine) There is no mention of "inside" or "outside" in the provision; what matters is the public character of the location. The only exception is architecture, where FoP is limited to the "outer appearance of the architectural structure" (emphasis mine), and since the work in question (a sculpture, I believe) is not an "architectural structure", FoP applies. Never mind about that particular photo, this is just FYI. GregorB (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GregorB: . Could be. I'm not sure this is a publicly accessible place, like a street, square, park,... These are all outside places, and the location itself does not seem to be publicly accessible even if we take into consideration that interiors count as publicly accessible too. Anyway, you can at any time request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. -Eleassar (t/p) 09:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the image is not available, and I'm not familiar with the sculpture in question, I can't say anything about the actual location. (Lobby of the Croatian Institute of Public Health in Zagreb, perhaps?[5]) Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing that the deletion itself was a wrong thing to do, only that the rationale was not correct.
I see at least three general problems when assessing FoP:
1) What counts as "publicly accessible" is not always straightforward: this seems to include privately-owned spaces such as shops too, as well as various government institutions, i.e. those areas normally accessible to visitors (e.g. lobbies).
2) E.g. a sculpture in someone's back yard may not be publicly accessible (unless it's in full view from public space?), in which case I gather it's not covered by FoP, even if it's outside.
3) It may not be always possible to reliably assess - looking solely at the photograph - whether the location in question is publicly accessible or not, even assuming that definitions are perfectly clear.
In practice, 1) and 3) are real problems, while situations described in 2) are probably rare. GregorB (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Conference project

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Szinjatszo.jpg

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jcb (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Truite arc-en-ciel.jpg

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:Truite arc-en-ciel.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!

Guanaco (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Settlements_in_Slovenia

Category discussion warning

Settlements 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!

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

Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

small translation request

Hi,

I wanted to ask how to translate "Village in China" and "town in China" in Slovenian? (Its for wikidata). Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
village in China - vas na Kitajskem
town in China - mesto na Kitajskem.
BR, --Eleassar (t/p) 17:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments - Slovenia edition

Mogoče si že zasledil, da smo se letos lotili organizacije natečaja Wiki Loves Monuments v Sloveniji. Pomoč in/ali udeležba septembra dobrodošla. Zaenkrat sem postavil predstavitveno stran na Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Slovenia, ostalo sledi. — Yerpo Eh? 12:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hvala za obvestilo, Yerpo! Bom pogledal, kako lahko pomagam. --TadejM (t/p) 13:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Za začetek vprašanje: če izločim spomenike, za katere v RKD piše, da so bili postavljeni ali modificirani od 19. stoletja dalje, bo to dovolj, da ne bo težav s FoP? Podatki zgledajo kar kompletni, le par deset vnosov je brez datacije. — Yerpo Eh? 15:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meni se zdi ok. Imaš kakšen primer? --TadejM (t/p) 16:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sem objavil testni seznam za Gorenjsko (spomenikov po selekciji je cca. 2000, zato sem jih razdelil po statističnih regijah) - glej sl:Wikipedija:Wiki Loves Monuments v Sloveniji (2019)/Seznam spomenikov v gorenjski regiji. — Yerpo Eh? 19:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tu je videti vse ok. Seveda se lahko zgodi, da se bo za kakšen spomenik šele pozneje izkazalo, da ne ustreza merilom. Verjetno je več avtorjev, ki so umrli šele po letu 1948 in so v 19. stoletju že kaj ustvarili. Nimam pojma, kako je z avtorskimi pravicami na njihovih delih, ampak načeloma velja konservativnost. Če odkriješ kakšnega takega avtorja, predlagam, da se njegove stvaritve po privzetem izključijo. --TadejM (t/p) 19:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Očitno se nisem dovolj jasno izrazil - odfiltriral sem 19., 20. in 21. stoletje, ravno zato, da smo na varni strani. Če bi pustil 19. stoletje, bi bilo skoraj nemogoče iskati posamezne primere pri 5000 enotah. Imam pa zdaj skripto, s katero se lahko igram s kombinacijami. — Yerpo Eh? 20:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Odfiltrirati celo 19. stoletje je nepotrebno. Boljše, da se dopolnijo navodila in se posamezni primeri izločijo naknadno (ali da se izločijo samo arhitekturne stvaritve). 5000 enot ni taka nemogoča številka, da se je ne bi dalo pregledati ročno. Še sploh, če upoštevaš, da to vključuje tudi razne kmečke hiše ipd., tako da se ta množica za pregled/izključitev še dodatno zmanjša. Pohvale za skripto. --TadejM (t/p) 20:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zaenkrat sem zastavil navodila bolj v smislu, da so spomeniki v pregledovalniku RKD, če je kdo v dvomih glede svobode panorame, pa naj se drži seznamov, za katere jamčimo, da so "čisti". Za letos, ko je prvič (in ni več ogromno časa za pregledovanje), je to minus 19. stoletje in dalje, v naslednjih letih jih lahko pa izpilimo. Ali bi se ti zdelo bolje obrniti logiko in dati sezname enot, ki so skoraj gotovo ok, a jih naj udeleženci še preverijo pred nalaganjem v pregledovalniku RKD? Osebno se mi zdi, da slednja možnost predstavlja kar veliko tveganje za slabo voljo, ker poleg avtorjev je tu še problem osirotelih del, ki jih je tudi ogromno. Že uveljavljeni uporabniki, ki naletijo na problem FoP, so dostikrat tako užaljeni, da nehajo prispevati, kaj šele novinci, ki jih želimo pritegniti. — Yerpo Eh? 08:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bi se mi zdelo smiselno. Slaba volja novincev me ne skrbi toliko. Veliko večji problem je neupoštevanje spomenikov celotnega stoletja, v katerem je nastalo veliko pomembnih del, kot odhod nekaj prepotentnih novincev (ali posameznega novinca), ki ne želijo upoštevati dogovorov. Zaradi brisanja člankov iz različnih vzrokov so nekateri prav tako užaljeni, pa jim pač ne moremo pomagati. Večino materiala tako in tako prispevamo dolgoletni sodelavci. Nasploh bi se mi zdelo smiselno udeležence opozoriti čim prej na te stvari. Boljše, da se s pravili projektov spoznajo že takoj na začetku, da ne bo konfliktov pozneje. --TadejM (t/p) 09:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, bom razmislil. — Yerpo Eh? 09:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi TadejM/Archive 4,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

Recover

Hallo TadejM, ich sehe du hast File:Gornja Radgona 7105.JPG wieder hergestellt. Mir ist nicht klar, war um das Bild damals gelöscht wurde, denn den Text verstehe ich leider bis heute nicht und wo eine Schöpfungshöhe vorhanden ist, dass das Todesjahr von Župančič wichtig ist. danke und einen guten Rutsch K@rl (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Karl, Župančič starb 1949, daher sind seine Werke seit dem 1. Januar 2020 (heute) öffentlich zugänglich. Danke, auch für Dich ein frohes neues Jahr 🥂. --TadejM (t/p) 18:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:The Different View.jpg

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:The Different View.jpg A1Cafel (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: Thanks for the notification. This is a photograph of a Wikipedian's watercolour for which she gave me her consent to upload it in 2007. Anyway, there's no OTRS evidence. I've left her a message on Messenger if she decides to reupload it herself. --TadejM (t/p) 16:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She has now added some further information. --TadejM (t/p) 01:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vocalists_from_Slovenia_by_gender

Category discussion warning

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

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Adelfrank (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hello World Brian Kernighan 1978.jpg

Pay attention to licensing
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:Hello World Brian Kernighan 1978.jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−


The reason given by the user who added this tag is: Obviously a work of art, and appeared in an arts auction

Crash48 (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crash48. Thank you for notifying me. I have removed the tag - there is nothing copyrightable (the text is generic computer code). if you disagree, please nominate the file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests. --TadejM (t/p) 07:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The code itself may not be copyrightable, but the whole image certainly is. Cf. en:File:Iris Clert Portrait Rauschenberg.jpg which is another text-only work of art, but tagged as copyrighted fair use. I'm not claiming that Kernighan's work of art is non-free -- only that it's copyrightable -- therefore I'm not nominating it for deletion. --Crash48 (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on this point. This image was not created as a work of art in the first place, unlike the one that you cite as a reference, which is considered a portrait. It would be consistent with your point of view to nominate the file for deletion if you consider it out of the scope of the project. However, it's up to you. What's the difference between 'non-free' and 'copyrightable' in any case? --TadejM (t/p) 09:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be extra sure, I've emailed Kernighan himself for permission, and got the following response:
I personally am happy to grant permission to Wikipedia
for the Hello World printout, as CC-BY-SA. I don't know who
really has the right, since I created it originally, then
donated it to Artsy, who then auctioned it to someone (not
known to me). But you have my permission insofar as it is
mine to give.
Brian Kernighan
OK to change the licensing tag to cc-by-sa-3.0? --Crash48 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crash48, thank you for your effort. I consider the file uncopyrightable, but feel free to open a wider discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If you gain the consensus to relicense the file, please follow the correct procedure as described at Commons:OTRS and let the OTRS team sort this out. Please note that Kernighan's statement is slightly contradictory since he limited the permission to reuse to Wikipedia and then stated it should be CC-BY-SA. Files hosted here must be free for reuse by anyone. --TadejM (t/p) 14:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hello World Brian Kernighan 1974.jpg

File:Hello World Brian Kernighan 1974.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Calvinkulit • t • c 11:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plants.jpg

Hi TadejM, this collage has been derived, among others, from File:Ferns02.jpg which cannot be re-used under the terms of a CC-BY-SA license. Do you want to update it or shall I nominate it for deletion? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AFBorchert, thank you for notifying me. Feel free to nominate it for deletion. Kr, --TadejM (t/p) 19:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AFBorchert. I have now tagged this image File:Plants.jpg with {{Wrong license}} and notified both the author of the collage and the author of the original fern photo. --TadejM (t/p) 12:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoFoP-Slovenia

Template:NoFoP-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 template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I have commented on the discussion page. --TadejM (t/p) 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear TadejM

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello TadejM,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streets_in_Idrija

Category discussion warning

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

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

A09090091 (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:2021-07-11 Libušnje, Kobarid.jpg

Copyright status: File:2021-07-11 Libušnje, Kobarid.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:2021-07-11 Libušnje, Kobarid.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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 00:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parts_of_bridges_in_Slovenia

Category discussion warning

Category:Parts_of_bridges_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!

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

EconAmbiente (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

prijava mojih fotografij

Pozdravljeni vidim da ste prijavili moje fotografije kranja, ki sem jih naredil na zeljo Mestne občine Kranj in Zavoda za turizem. Prosim da mi razlozite razlog? hvala Andraz Muljavec — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:261:0:B:0:0:0:E3A2 (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pozdravljeni, gre za fotografije avtorsko zavarovanih del, zato ne ustrezajo namenu tega projekta. Teh fotografij namreč ni dovoljeno uporabljati za kakršen koli namen (vključno s pridobitnim). Prosim, glejte članek Svoboda panorame v slovenski vikipediji in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Slovenia#Freedom of panorama. --TadejM (t/p) 09:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hello, would you mind giving a rationale for the revert? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies, I must have misclicked something. --TadejM (t/p) 22:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:20th-century architecture in Slovenia

Template:20th-century architecture 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 template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos Cova de Sant Ignasi

Bon dia. Penso que les fotos dels mosaics de Rupnik de la Cova de Sant Ignasi de Manresa no s'haurien d'esborrar, ja que formen part d'una església que és pública, que hi entra qui vol. Salut! 91.126.116.129 08:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please post this at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mosaics by Marko Ivan Rupnik. --TadejM (t/p) 08:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

Hej TadejM, ne znam govoriš li naški pa... layout here is as same as thousands of other architecture-related categories, means template with countries of top, MetaCat below, with no spacing. So I would like to keep such unification, but I don't have anything against of putting Template:mld on top, that's fine.

By the way, when it comes about architecture-related categories, I dare to say Slovenia is one of the best organized countries, if not the best! :) I was busy with it in past several months, as well as with few larger countries. You can check yourself in Categories of Slovenia by material, by style, by century along with many subcats, it's a total order. However, if you have even a slightest objection feel free to inform me, just ping me here. --Orijentolog (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orijentolog. That is fine with me. I would keep mld on top, other things can be left as is. I have not recently edited categories, but did extensively categorize images about 10 years ago. Thank you a lot also for your contribution. --TadejM (t/p) 12:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm well aware about your contributions, I saw histories of categories, great job. :) By the way, thanks to Wikidata infoboxes, language templates are now largely obsolete. I opened infoboxes for roofs to show you; I put Slovenian description there as title. Furthermore, a great advantage of infoboxes is that automatically translates "category combines topics" to hundreds of languages, so everyone will understand it (even non-English and non-Slovenian speakers). I well remember that you've been inserting German and sometimes French descriptions in categories; if they're gone, no worry, I simply moved it to infobox so nothing is lost.
One other thing, do you mind that we merge Vienna Secession architecture in Slovenia to Art Nouveau architecture in Slovenia? As far as I understood all Art Nouveau in Slovenia is Vienna Secession (or I'm wrong?). --Orijentolog (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much appreciated! I've seen infoboxes, they're tidy and I much prefer to use them where possible. I would not merge 'Vienna Secession' to 'Art Nouveau'; art historians differentiate them (at least in Slovenia).[6] That's why I've created separate categories. --TadejM (t/p) 12:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to request for deletion the mosaic work of Marko Ivan Rupnik in...

...Interior of Igreja da Santíssima Trindade, Fátima. Zarateman (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This one is in Portugal; FoP applies (see COM:FOP Portugal). --TadejM (t/p) 22:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

URAA

Malo poglej Commons:URAA-restored copyrights preden začneš s tako masovnimi brisanji (...it was decided that files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under U.S. and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion.) Sporti (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preberi do konca: "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." --TadejM (t/p) 15:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vseeno velja "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" npr. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hao Jianxiu.jpg. --Sporti (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ne vem, kako in zakaj je bil zgornji primer zaključen kot kept, ampak pravilo je navedeno na Commons:URAA, kjer je poudarjeno, da je bila sprememba previdnostnega načela v smislu, da se te datoteke ohranijo, zavrnjena.
V Category:URAA-related deletion requests/deleted imaš številne primere izbrisa datotek zaradi URAA.
V pravilu jasno piše: »Po razpravi na Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA in nadaljnji neuspešni spremembi previdnostnega načela je bilo odločeno, da je treba datoteke, predlagane za brisanje zaradi URAA, natančno pregledati in oceniti njihovo avtorskopravno stanje v skladu s pravom ZDA in lokalno zakonodajo. Zgolj trditev, da za datoteko velja URAA, ne more biti edini razlog za izbris. Če pa je končni rezultat ocene avtorskopravnega stanja, da obstaja pomemben dvom o prostosti datoteke pod pravom ZDA ali lokalnim pravom, je treba datoteko v skladu s previdnostnim načelom izbrisati.«
(asking Jim for comment) --TadejM (t/p) 16:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glej tudi Commons:Wikilivres – wiki, ki je bil namenjen prav gostovanju datotek, ki so proste v izvorni državi, ne pa v ZDA, zato jih Wikimedia ni gostila. --TadejM (t/p) 16:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph has confused many people. The policy that Commons Admins are following is that simply saying that the URAA applies is not sufficient -- one must carefully analyze whether all of the requirements of the URAA have been met. If that is the case, then the file will be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I have checked the provisions and believe that all the requirements have been met in the proposed nominations. --TadejM (t/p) 17:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

License of File:Adam Falckenhagen Bildnis.jpg

Hi TadejM, taggings like this one where you added {{Wrong license}} to a perfectly described and licensed file are not helpful. We do not apply this tag just because a link is dead. And in this case it is particularly easy to verify the claims as the engraving is properly signed by the artist and as you can easily find this engraving described elsewhere like, for example, at the British Museum. Even the link can be fixed by a minimal amount of research as the image is still to be found at the original site. Please be more careful – otherwise we would lose good images just because a former is user ceased to be active. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AFBorchert. Thanks for fixing the information. I don't find anything particularly wrong with adding this template as it is used in cases where "source or informations provided are not sufficient enough to support the selected license tag". Now you have provided the information so it is not needed anymore. Of course I will follow your instructions in checking the license tag in the future as I am not just "drive-by tagging". Thanks for that. --TadejM (t/p) 17:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFBorchert, probably we would need another template if this one is less than ideal in such a case. I used {{Dead link}} initially, but it does even not categorize pages for maintenance. --TadejM (t/p) 19:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TadejM, I disagree that this was a case where “source or informations provided are not sufficient enough to support the selected license tag”. Everything was there and could be easily verified. The artist was named, his life span was given with links to Wikidata and the corresponding Wikipedia articles. The collection and a reference number were provided. A simple Google search for these terms would have led you to an updated link. Link rot by itself is a common problem and should not alone lead to a tagging with {{Wrong license}}. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. I have no idea why I tagged that image. I must pay more attention in the future. --TadejM (t/p) 22:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doprsni kip Ivana Tavčarja.jpg

Hi TadejM, this is a DR about a monument with a bust of Ivan Tavčar, apparently created in 1936 if Google translates the inscription correctly. Unfortunately, it still remains unknown who created this bust. It would be great if you could have a look at this. Unfortunately, I do not speak Slovenian and hence my ability to research this is quite limited. Thanks & kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AFBorchert. I've replied at the said DR page. --TadejM (t/p) 04:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth 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 (2022) 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 are all 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.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main page vandalism

You unintentionally participated in vandalism on the main page today, see the history of Template:Potd/2023-09-09 (en). Multichill (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It seems as a misplaced edit rather than vandalism though. --TadejM (t/p) 21:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slovene translation needs to be changed also. MZaplotnik(talk) 21:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --TadejM (t/p) 21:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Girdlers

Category discussion warning

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

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

JopkeB (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TadejM/Archive_4&oldid=873315219"