User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
TUSC token 5251391db59cd9437f0a4e25c6ceaea6
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
На овој карти „Срем“ је остао у латиничном облику. Мислим да то треба да се исправи. --109.93.16.153 16:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
|
File:50dinara_01.06.1990.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. |
78.186.247.47 10:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Lego minifigure
Hello Vanjagenije, is it discussion ; COM:DW#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. --FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
fotografije ambasada
Ne znam koji problem imas pa si glasao da se obrisu sve one slike ambasada (pretpostavljam da stojis i iza IP adrese sa koje je predlozeno brisanje). Zaista smesno, ja imam sve mejlove jos uvek, i fotografije ce nadam se uskoro biti vracene tako da ovim izivljavanjem nista nisi postigao.--Avala (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Picture of the Year voting round 1 open
Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:
- Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
- This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
- Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).
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. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.
To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year
Hi, I'm not sure why you tagged this as missing evidence of permission. The template clearly states the image from the museum website is public domain. The current URL of the image is at http://digitalassets.ushmm.org/photoarchives/detail.aspx?id=1139996, where it says "Public Domain". Spellcast (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The URLs seem to be dynamic. So if the link isn't working, just go to the search bar on the top of the homepage. Type in the photo number 13356 in the search box to see the image. Spellcast (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see. You are right. Sorry. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Masovno brisanje slika na Commonsu
Čemu toliko zahtevaš da se brišu slike na Commonsu mislim na ovo zadnje? Pozdrav! --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I clearly explained the reasons for deletion at the nomination pages. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nije te čovek to pitao. Pitao te je a i ja te pitam, koji problem imaš, koja ti je motivacija da uništavaš tuđi trud nekakvim sumanutim kvazipravnim zahvatima? Verovatno bi bio najsrećniji da se obriše cela Vikipedija na srpskom, do te mere ide tvoja mržnja i pokušaji uništavanja projekta. I ako neko drugi ovo čita i misli da sam preoštar - neka pogleda malo istoriju ovog genija, pa da vidi koliko je stvari obrisano samo na osnovu njegovih lažnih kvazipravnih objašnjenja zašto sve to treba pobrisati a na koja su pali neki od administratora. Šteta koju praviš projektu je nemerljiva i nadam se da si makar ti srećan i da te uzbuđuje što ti ove nebuloze još uvek prolaze.--Avala (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Izvinite, nisam zaista razumeo šta me je pitao. Hvala što ste mi pojasnili. Dakle, odgovor na vaše pitanje je: nemam nikakav problem. Čini mi se kao da vi imate neki problem sa pravilima koja važe na Commonsu. Wikimedia Commons, kao i drugi Wikimedia projekti imaju svoja pravila. Niko ovde nije nateran da učestvuje, vać se dobrovoljno učlanio. Samim tim je prihvatio pravila koja važe. Onaj ko ne želi da prihvati pravila, ne mora da se učlani. Jedno od najvažnijih pravila je da se na Commons mogu uploadovati samo fajlovi koji su u javnom domenu ili koji su objavljeni pod slobodnom licencom. Naravno da ne mislim da treba da se obriše cela Wikipedia. Ja sam lično napisao mnoge članke, i uploadovao mnoge fajlove. Da mi je jedina želja da, kako kažete, "uništavam projekte" sigurno se ne bih toliko trudio oko toga. Ali, smatram da treba da se obrišu svi fajlovi koji su uploadovani protivno pravilima Commonsa. Optužujete me da uništavam tuđi trud, ali ja uopšte ne mislim da je to što radim nešto loše. Brisanjem fajlova koji su zaštićeni autorskim pravima unapređuje se Wikimedia, i motivišu se članovi da poštuju pravila i da se više potrude da pronađu fajlove koji nisu zaštićeni. Što se tiče toga da li su moja objašnjenja lažna ili prava, mislim da ovde nije mesto da diskutujemo o tome. Administratori svakako nisu nepismeni ljudi, a ako mislite da sam ih ja slagao i da sam izmislio neke podatke, slobodno to napišite u diskusijama prilikom brisanja fajlova, umesto da me ovde optužujete. Vanja / Вања (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nije te čovek to pitao. Pitao te je a i ja te pitam, koji problem imaš, koja ti je motivacija da uništavaš tuđi trud nekakvim sumanutim kvazipravnim zahvatima? Verovatno bi bio najsrećniji da se obriše cela Vikipedija na srpskom, do te mere ide tvoja mržnja i pokušaji uništavanja projekta. I ako neko drugi ovo čita i misli da sam preoštar - neka pogleda malo istoriju ovog genija, pa da vidi koliko je stvari obrisano samo na osnovu njegovih lažnih kvazipravnih objašnjenja zašto sve to treba pobrisati a na koja su pali neki od administratora. Šteta koju praviš projektu je nemerljiva i nadam se da si makar ti srećan i da te uzbuđuje što ti ove nebuloze još uvek prolaze.--Avala (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Ne misliš da je uništavati tuđi rad loše, kakvu to poruku šalje drugima? Mi ovde svi poznajemo pravila Commonsa. A šta je fajlova koji su zaštićeni autorskim pravom Wikimedija Fondacije jer i to ne može da ide na Commons? --Kolega2357 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ako neko radi protivno pravilima i narušava integritet ovog projekta, mislim da je sasvim ok uništavati njegov rad. Vanja / Вања (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ti si taj koji uništava projekat nekakvim kvazipravnim akrobacijama koje smišljaš kako bi opravdao brisanje fajlova koji su inače u potpunosti odgovarajući za Commons. A samo ti znaš zašto to radiš i šta time dobijaš. Nema tog fajla na Commonsu koji sa takvim destruktivnim žarom ne bi uspeo da izdejstvuješ da bude obrisan, samo je pitanje - čemu? Npr. ja sam toliko dugo radio na komunikaciji sa ambasadama Srbije svuda po svetu da nam obezbede fotografije ambasada Srbije koje bi mogli da koristimo ovde na commons. I šta je sad sa tim fotografijama? Sve su pobrisane i to bez ikakvog valjanog razloga već samo zbog tvog nagona ka destrukciji, zato što kako sam kažeš misliš da je ok uništavati tuđi rad. I ovde sad pričaš kako se trudiš da se obrišu fotografije zaštićene autorskim pravima. Čija autorska prava štitiš brisanjem npr. fotografije sa suđenja Draži Mihailoviću? Imaš li neki odgovor? Nemaš naravno, nikakva autorska prava nisu u pitanju nego čisto iživljavanje odnosno trolovanje (person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal discussion). Zbog ove tvoje jeftine zabave, da gledaš kako se mi nerviramo, pati ceo projekat a sati tuđeg truda se bacaju niz vodu. Neka ti je na čast.--Avala (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ova definicija trola koju ste naveli u potpunosti odgovara onome što vi meni radite. Vanja / Вања (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ti si taj koji uništava projekat nekakvim kvazipravnim akrobacijama koje smišljaš kako bi opravdao brisanje fajlova koji su inače u potpunosti odgovarajući za Commons. A samo ti znaš zašto to radiš i šta time dobijaš. Nema tog fajla na Commonsu koji sa takvim destruktivnim žarom ne bi uspeo da izdejstvuješ da bude obrisan, samo je pitanje - čemu? Npr. ja sam toliko dugo radio na komunikaciji sa ambasadama Srbije svuda po svetu da nam obezbede fotografije ambasada Srbije koje bi mogli da koristimo ovde na commons. I šta je sad sa tim fotografijama? Sve su pobrisane i to bez ikakvog valjanog razloga već samo zbog tvog nagona ka destrukciji, zato što kako sam kažeš misliš da je ok uništavati tuđi rad. I ovde sad pričaš kako se trudiš da se obrišu fotografije zaštićene autorskim pravima. Čija autorska prava štitiš brisanjem npr. fotografije sa suđenja Draži Mihailoviću? Imaš li neki odgovor? Nemaš naravno, nikakva autorska prava nisu u pitanju nego čisto iživljavanje odnosno trolovanje (person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal discussion). Zbog ove tvoje jeftine zabave, da gledaš kako se mi nerviramo, pati ceo projekat a sati tuđeg truda se bacaju niz vodu. Neka ti je na čast.--Avala (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Tuđi rad bezobzira kakav bio na Commonsu ne treba uništavati nego treba korisnika obavestiti o tome. Lako je tebi da se zakloniš iza administratora koji ne znaju srpski i ne znaju o čemu se radi, no oni nisu krivi nego si ti kriv. Kakvu poruku šalje to što druge korisnike provociraš ovde na Commonsu? Zbog tvoje pristranosti i subjektivnosti je obrisano više od 50 slika koje su javno vlasništvo. Očigledno ti shvataš Wikimedia Commons kao zabavu za isterivanje svoje pravde. Pozdrav i sve najbolje! --Kolega2357 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
So what? It is a copyrights violation.
Then it will be deleted in five days. Adding a speedy delete template after an admin already tagged with no permission is counterproductive. no permission assumes good faith, makes the uploader aware of what the issue is, and gives him/her a chance to fix the issue. I'm trying to be positive here and when in doubt rather try to retain and educate a new contributor rather than just chase somebody away. --Dschwen (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Povodom mišljenja ZIS-a
Čuo sam da si pitao Zavod za intelektualnu svojinu RS da li se slike sa vladinih sajtova mogu smatrati službenim materijalima i dobio negativan odgovor. Ne znam koliko si u ovoj tematici, ali bih želeo da ti napomenem da upravni organ, kao što je Zavod za intelektualnu svojinu, nije ovlašten da tumači zakon. Mišljenje upravnog organa nije pravno obavezujuće. Samo sud tumači zakon i samo mišljenje suda je obavezujuće. Jedan moj kolega je u sudskom sporu upravo sa pomenutim Zavodom, zbog njihovog, kako on veruje pogrešnog, tumačenja Zakona o autorskim i srodnim pravima.
Naime, član 6, paragraf 2 Zakona o autorskim i srodnim pravima Republike Srbije glasi: "Ne smatraju se autorskim delom: 2) službeni materijali državnih organa i organa koji obavljaju javnu funkciju." Dakle državni fotograf dok je na dužnosti ili službeni fotograf ustanove koja obavlja neku javnu funkciju. U tom pogledu Zakon je sasvim jasan. U smislu tumačenja Zakona, mišljenje ZIS-a je podjednako (i)relevantno kao i bilo čije drugo mišljenje. Hvala na pažnji. --Mladifilozof (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hvala na isrpnom mišljenju. Znam da Zavod nije nadležan da daje tumačenje zakona, to su i sami rekli u pismu koje su mi poslali ([1]). Ali, Zavod ima obavezu da na zahteve fizičkih ili pravnih lica daje mišljenje o primeni pojedinih odredbi Zakona. Ne bih baš rekao da je mišljenje nekoga ko ima zakonsku obavezu da daje mišljenje irelevantno. Vi tvrdite da se državni fotograf dok je na dužnosti može smatrati "organom koji obavlja javnu funkciju". Da li je to tako ja ne znam. U svakom slučaju, kao što ste i sami rekli, vaše mišljenje je irelevantno, jer niste citirali odluku suda koji je jedini nadležan da tumači zakon. Ali, i ako bismo uzeli da ste u pravu, šta time dobijamo? Ako bismo neku fotografiju sa zvaničnog web sajta npr. vlade ili skupštine hteli da proglasimo da je u javnom domenu, morali bismo da dokažemo da ju je načinio službeni fotograf dok je bio na dužnostia, a to je, čini mi se, nemoguće. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Slažem se, naravno da slike se slike za vladinih sajtova ne mogu neselektivno preuzimati, ali s druge strane nije nemoguće utvrditi šta je službena publikacija, pa čak i da li je autor slike službeni (zaposleni) fotograf neke ustanove. Što se tiče mišljenja ZIS-a, paralela bi bila da pitaš načelnika policije da iznese svoje tumačenje Zakona o javnom redu i miru, koji je dužan da sprovodi. Svakako da se od njega očekuje da poznaje taj zakon, ali njegovo mišljenje te ne obavezuje. P.S. Ne moraš mi persirati osim ako ti nije gušt. --Mladifilozof (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Autorska prava na području bivše Jugoslavije
Na srpskohrvatskoj Wikipediji smo pokrenuli stranicu sh:Wikipedia:Autorska prava na području bivše Jugoslavije kako bismo rešili pitanje autorskih prava prvenstveno fotografija, ali i ostalih dela nastalih u bivšoj Jugoslaviji. Utvrđivanje opsega javnog dobra će doneti prilične koristi Wikipediji i srodnim projektima, pre svega Commonsu i Izvorniku.
Pošto te zanima tematika autorskih prava rekoh da te obavestim. Pozdrav! --Mladifilozof (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Максим_Олегович_Тимошенко.JPG
Good day!
My name is Dmitriy. Yesterday I have made english version of wikipedia page "Максим Олегович Тимошенко". Many thanks to for your active position and things,that you have done to make page better and clear. But, I am a little bit shocked about situation with photo Максим_Олегович_Тимошенко.JPG. This photo was given to me by owner special to be dowloaded to wikipedia page. After this, this photo was taken by other people,for example to be used at http://ludinaroku.com.ua/archive/person/903. I can not understand one thing - why this photo was deleted without any questions and tryings to find out who is the owner and who take this photo after. Please, help me to put this photo back, there is no copyright violation at all. I can ask author of photo or Mr. Tymoshenko to write letter if it is needed to prove my words.
Great thanks for your assistance. Timosh2011 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi! Wikimedia Commons have very strict rules about copyrights (see: Commons:Copyrights). Commons only accepts files that are either in the public domain or files that are copyrighted, but released under a free license by the copyrights holder. If you upload copyrighted photo (as You did), you have to prove that it was released under a free license by the author/copyrights holder. Commons users and administrators don't have obligation to "examine" the copyrights status of the file, but You, as the uploader, have obligation to prove that the file is released under a free license. Since you are not the author of the photo, you have to prove that the actual author released this photo under a free license, that is, that the author agrees that anyone may use this photo for any purpose, including commercial usage. If you have a letter (or e-mail) from the author of the photo, where he agrees to release the photo under free license, You can use this as an evidence and send it using Commons:OTRS (on that page, you also have an example of how the letter/e-mail should look like). But, remember: the author has to agree to release the photo under FREE LICENSE. This means that anybody can use the photo for any purpose, as only those files are accepted in Commons. If he gives you a permission only to use the photo in Wikipedia/WikimediaCommons, that is not enough! S
- So, If you have a permission from the author of the photo, where he agrees to release it under a free license, you should e-mail this permission to the OTRS team. After that, you can remove the "no permission" tag from the photo page. You don't need to wait for the answer from the OTRS team. Than, You should tag the photo with the Template:OTRS pending. If you do not do that, the photo will probably be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
|
|
File:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial - caribou statue1.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. |
Labattblueboy (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
|
|
File:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial - caribou statue2.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. |
Labattblueboy (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement
Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!
- ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 1⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, français, magyar, italiano, македонски, 日本語, русский, svenska
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) 19:22, 22 February 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
Dear Vanjagenije,
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:
- 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
- In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
- 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) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
filmfann pictures about the Ventura Film Festival
These are my photos. I took them at a public place (hence they are public domain or my intellectual property) and I have written/legal permission from the festival and people in the photos to post them online, could you remove your nomination for speedy deletion to save a bunch of trouble?Filmfann (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)filmfann
Please hands off my photos! These are my photos that are being used in other places too, I took these pictures and own the copyrights to them.
Example: filmfreeway.com is a 3rd party site not an offical site and is using them as well, you can also see them in the vcstar.com and other places.
Anyway please un-delete them. Filmfann (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)filmfann
- Hi! Unfortunately, you'll have to prove that those photos are your own work. They are currently published at a web site that is copyrighted. If those photos are your own work, why don't you upload them in full resolution with EXIF data. Those files you uploaded are obviously downloaded from here. If you are the author, why don't you upload original files? That would be the way to prove the authorship. Anyway, Wikimedia Commons is very strict in copyrights. The photos will be deleted if you are unable to prove that you are the author. I can't delete them, because I am not an administrator. I just proposed them for deletion, but administrator is going to review my proposition and your appeal and to decide on deletion. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
my photos are passing the "simple check list" here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules#Simple_checklist
could you please respond and remove the nomination for deletion? Filmfann (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)filmfann
- I responded, but you removed my comment ([2]). I hope you did not intend to do that. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
File tagging File:Jadranka Stojaković-Dani-sarajeva 09.jpg
|
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Jadranka Stojaković-Dani-sarajeva 09.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you. |
Smooth_O (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2016 (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. |
Kelly (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, im shams psargad 2000
Im Dr. safaei iranian General dentist .Me and my sitster working in article Navid faridi he is iranian football player and we are know him. because we are iranian . some time i wrote this article some time my sister also khabargozari mehr wrot this article. It was just stoped everyday by some user and they told us about picturs news paper , source , news, and today i send masage in his website www.Navid fridi.ir fore picturs newspapers, and he send me some news paper picturs for his article , Today your closed shams pasargad 2000 , before you doing close my user name whay you didnt answer me about this user names ? If was not accepted for then you can close that. 1 month we are wroting this article . This is first our article . please unbloke our user name and help us about this first article. With best regard Dr. safaei from iran Shams pasargad 2000 (talk) Shams pasargad 2000 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Shams pasargad 2000: What I understand is that you want to discuss my block of your Wikipedia account. That should be discussed at Wikipedia, not here at Wikimedia Commons. You are blocked, but you can still write on your user talk page (User talk:Shams pasargad 2000), and I'll be watching the page. If you have some questions about Wikimedia Commons, you can, of course, ask me here. You are talking about images and photos, but I do not understand much of what you say. Your images were deleted becaouse they are copyrighted and the copyright does not belong to you. Therefore, you have to provide permission from the copyright owner, which you didn't do (see: Commons:Copyright rules). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Removing my talk page access
Dear Vanjagenije, you have made a mistake. You have removed my talk page access due to me apparently removing a block request decline again but you're wrong. I did not remove your block request decline, please look at my edit carefully. I removed all the other sections in my talk page which I am fully entitled to do but I did not remove the block request decline. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I really won't disrupt anything.
Let me first give the full story for the background as to why I got blocked and why I kept making sock-accounts. This is only to provide background.
It all started with a single revert made by another user, in the real life situation I had limited time because I had to attend my youngest child who was sick 😷 at the time (I’m not asking for sympathy, or use this as a justification, only to explain my anger), I had originally planned to only edit for 5 minutes and then go away, my wife kept calling me “Don hurry up, Don hurry up” but then I as to my regret busy cussing at the reverter for not reading the description where I asked for a few minutes to be allowed to make another edit as mobile users can’t really edit whole pages but that’s a different story that would only distract from my plea.
After that I got into an argument with the user to which he showed no understanding or a willingness to wait as he had said that he felt no obligation to wait with reverting, after that I became more angry (something which I shouldn't have done and in the current light should’ve forced a wikibreak on myself) and at first I made an account with an u fortunate username wishing ill on that person, this was the first sock obviously it got deleted within minutes by an admin and after that I had noticed that there was no way for that account to appeal (couldn't edit its own talk page, e-mail, or other things) so just out curiosity I created a second sock to ask how one would be able to resolve such a situation with a message to respect mobile editors on its user page and before any question could get asked that account was blocked with the same restrictions. After which I started obsessively making new accounts names after the admin in question and I did make another account insulting the original reverter but immediately quite using it after realising how bad it was after a few minutes.
Now I did message the reverter a few times whenever I would make a similar edit and yes this was wrong and I fully understand it as such, I kept making subsequent accounts out of my autistic tendency (I am not asking for forgiveness on this fact) to have more “not blocked accounts” than blocked accounts, the accounts created then had names often completely picked at random with passwords equally picked at random causing me to forget them before I hit the button “create account”.
After I think a week I created the account Codename Alex purely to send barnstars to editors whose work I liked or wanted to make them feel better for their contributions to Wikipedia, after I had forgotten which random password I used for that account I “cloned” it with Sunshine Alexi to reward other editors, yes I also used this for 2 socks of mine but that was not because I hold any value to such rewards as I am only here to build an encyclopedia for the readers to enjoy and refer to, not to gather any vain points from anyone. I digress the socks made after these were again just random names with random messages often to respect mobile users but more often than not just random accounts I made because I gor addicted to creating them and trying to come up with a story or something to write on their userpages.
After getting upset that the image uploaded with the unfortunate username kept being deleted instead of simply filing an undeletion request (mostly because of a fear of getting blocked) I kept attempting to reupload it, however my last sock The Ivory Cowboy (or at least the last one I actively used) existed solely for editing purposes in order to evade any prior association and I wanted to do enough “good edits” with that account to try and convince the community that I was willing to get back on track before making an undeletion request. What got me “caught” however was when I responded to a thread at the village pump where one user wanted to change the policy WP:SOCKBLOCK and I confessed to having been blocked at multiple accounts and wanted to know how one could possibly appeal such a thing, in that message I had called the admins who deleted an image uploaded by a sock some less fortunate terms but for that I do not apologise as the copyright claim was unfounded however this is unrelated to the block.
The accounts and IPs were never used to convey false influence in deletion discussions or policy debates. Wikipedia does not work with a voting, nor did I attempt to use any sock for a false idea of support for any of the deletion debates I was participating in at the time. With the notable exception of the first sock with the most unfortunate name no other socks were deliberately disruptively editing Wikipedia nor did I ever vandalise any mainspace articles as I never once thought about doing our dear readers a disservice.
They did interact with each other on some occasions but that was only for insulting the user who had reverted me and if I were given the chance I would put a White Dove on his talk page hoping that he would forgive me for the wrongs I have done to him.
That was story of the socks.
I did not deliberately break policies while editing main articles, when I was hit with a copyright © strike by Dianaa I first civilly attempted to talk it out with her on her talk page and later attempted to re-insert the lost information completely reworded. I did not add any spam to Wikipedia, once though I was reverted by an anti-spam bot but after reverting that bot and leaving a few lengthy messages on its talk page the admin who operated it reviewed the situation and did not remove any of the links I had added. I just never blank my talk pages because I hate blanking.
6 months of not editing is a long time. That is to say that the standard offer doesn't work I several ways. Mainly because whenever I see an error or an unsourced peace in Wikipedia or an article needing improvement I almost immediately click on the “Edit” button, if I weren't allowed on English Wikipedia I already see myself constantly pinging random editors who had edited that page on other projects to ask them to implement some random change which would be both uncomfortable for me as for the user, sometimes at night I am thinking of ways to improve existing articles or fantasising about creating new articles, if I wouldn’t be able to do that I would probably get mad but that is not the reason why I am requesting to get unblocked. I am just commenting on why I do not want to take the standard offer and try to get a Template:2nd chance or at least a temporary unblock to prove my conduct and edit again.
Let me copy my past requests for unblocks here and explain why they aren’t as “frivolous” as they might seem.
“User talk:2405:4800:1484:AA29:7D7E:3417:E41D:5898 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search”
“So I only got blocked because again I asked why I got blocked in the first place?”
This was asked why all subsequent accounts after the first one with the less than appealing name got instantly blocked even as they did not make any disruptions other than 1 account praising some insults, on the thread I did ask why I kept getting blocked because the original block was solely about a username violation, however I understand that the main reason for getting blocked was evading the original block, not the sockpuppets asking for the block.
“I literally said that I stopped making any attempts at vandalizing. Why was I blocked? 2405:4800:1484:9559:4927:6ABD:69A:C5E3 (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) If you look at my latest edits all I did was talk about policies and aak for an image to be restored nothing more.”
This was because of the aforementioned thread on WP:SOCKBLOCK where I had admitted to my socks but stated that I had not made any vandalising socks since the ones where I had impersonated an admin (well, borrowed the name, only after the 6th attempt did I impersonate him), and any edits made as The Ivory Cowboy qualify as such, all I did was talk about policies and wanted to know how I could restore an image that was unjustfully deleted because of a copyright violation.
The Ivory Cowboy
“I do understand why I got blocked and I have not made any disruptive edits in weeks as I had a dispute with another user that has now been resolved. I will not edit any talk pages if that is where I am more prone to insults if you really don't trust me or if I simply break that policy again you may block me I indefinitely forever but you could at least give me a second chance the only reason I made this account is because no prior account could appeal a block because the first one I made had a bad username but if you look at the editing history of me as TIC you will not see any disruptions whatsoever nor am I planning on making them, you can watch me intensively for years believe me I have learned my lesson all I did was ask why my educational image got deleted on a phoney copyright claim and I do not apologize for calling that childish by the sysops that did because they could have blacklisted it to restrict it to one wikipedia page but they chose to delete it and that would rightfully make me upset but I have not made any disruptive edits since my bad username got blocked”
This is me explaining why I kept making more socks, and that I was angry at the image being deleted but I will simply make an undeletion request regarding it. And I could not appeal any block with any prior account, the main reason why I even created The Ivory Cowboy was to appeal the older blocks by showcasing that my edits weren’t disruptive while I didn't want to risk my account with my real name on it, which in retrospect was wrong and I know that it is WP:EVASION, but if I really believed that evasion would work I would be doing that right now and not writing the appeal, I even circumvented cookie block in order to see if it was possible and created an account called “Testing simplicity” solely as a test to see if it were possible but did not make any edits with it, as a sign of trust I am admitting that I COULD break my block and utilise randomised hardware settings and avoid the articles I had edited with a new account, but I choose to appeal because I have genuinely learned my lesson, why else would I confess to being able to circumvent this block but still choose to appeal it after being denied it several times?
A block works as a preventive measure, not a punitive one and not allowing me to edit for at least 6 months doesn't help anyone, articles that would otherwise be improved will remain unedited, and 6 months from now my stance on not wanting to sock again won’t have changed, I simply do not want to make any other accounts other than this one, and I only want the ability to build an encyclopedia, not to make random profiles again, I abused that option and do not wish to regain it, but I did not abuse editing mainspace articles and blocking me prevents me from contributing. Currently me being blocked does not benefit anyone, I will not make any sockpuppets and even request a specific category for my sock puppets to be created which would appear next to my signature so anyone would know what I did, it's about winning trust back from the community but in the end I am just here to help improve the website.
I plea to be given a Template:2nd chance or a conditional unblock where I am not allowed to make any new accounts or deliberately edit as an IP. I only want to help improve Wikipedia. At least please allow me to not get banned globally.
I wold like to appeal to unblocks are cheap,
But if you really don't think that you can trust I would like to request alternative options.
1) I get to edit my own talk page, I will not immediately make an appeal for unblock but I will try to contact the people I have wronged and ask them for forgiveness, I know that the policy specifically states that asking for forgiveness isn't necessary for an unblock but I do wish to show my sincerity in that I know that what I did was wrong, I will then only request another appeal after a few days or a week.
2) Otherwise be allowed to contact an administrator to lay down my options. Or to discuss other possibilities like degrading my block to a ban (be it an interaction ban or a general talk page ban)
--Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (Socks 🎭) 14:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- All I really want is a second chance, I confessed to everything and the problem was my socking not my editing, I really just want to be able to help contribute, I got carried away last month but I really won't ever repeat itm --14:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Trung (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Or at least allow me to try to talk with a Steward, I really am committed to the 1 person, 1 account policy. How can I prove this? Not being there for 6 months doesn't prove anything, only that I left everyone alone, please allow me to improve Wikimedia projects, that's all I am asking. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (Socks 🎭) 14:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- please see User talk:Ellin Beltz, I really am committed to making sure that none of my mistakes will be repeated, a block is only justified if I would but I won't. Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (Socks 🎭) 14:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:LUIS MACEDO wanted.jpeg 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. |
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:Svilajnac2.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. |
Jcb (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:Dailynationlogo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
— Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:UNGA President countries.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Forthrunner (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:Srednji grb Vranja2.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Jcb (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
i am Princess of fighting to injustice
hey you, today i am tend to end of you and your friends injustice and Lack of morality behavior against me. Be careful and answer right.
you and your friends in en wiki with a abnormal and mental sick user (mohsen1248) suffer me over 3 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rowingasia/Archive
you are blocked me instead of other person that have conflict with mohsen1248.
your admins was deleted my articles with reason :
18:41, 25 February 2016 MusikAnimal (talk | contribs) deleted page Asian Sambo Championships (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (پارسا آملی) in violation of ban or block (TW))
but you and your friends Explicitly announced : Unrelated
this user unrelated to me ? Do you understand what is unrelated meaning?
@Bbb23: is there any reason AllFutsal is blocked temporarily? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I mistakenly thought it was blocked indefinitely, not temporarily. I fixed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
And, yes, what about the alleged connection to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی? Did you check? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know there was an alleged connection. In any event, the master and socks here are Unrelated to the accounts confirmed by DoRD on January 4, 2016, e.g., Callderon (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Injusticefighting (talk • contribs) 10:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
documents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rowingasia/Archive
i create one account rowing asia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rowingasia
06:33, 24 September 2015 (diff | hist) (+2,331) N User talk:Rowingasia .
i have one account. This account has no other edited articles and has left.
but i dont like this name rowingasia. and havent action with this.
after more , 20:39, 10 February 2016 (diff | hist) (+3,613) FIFA Futsal World Cup
6 month later i creat allfusal and have great and good edits on wikipedia sports article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Injusticefighting (talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
until this abnormal user in my talk page :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AllFutsal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AllFutsal#February_2016
you can see :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AllFutsal#A_kitten_for_you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Injusticefighting (talk • contribs) 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
you can see :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AllFutsal#A_kitten_for_you!
he has been deleted by all my efforts. (mohsen1248) because of he think i am parsa amoli (پارسا املی).
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mohsen1248&oldid=706709184#Futsal_Table
This fool (=abnormal user mohsen1248) threatened me that : Eliminates all my work. And it hinders my activity.
yeah sure, what about all those sock accounts I reported myself and got blocked ? you need a reminder "Amoli" ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
because this stupid mohsen think : i am parsa amoli.
look at this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mohsen1248&oldid=706876731#Asian_Armwrestling_Championship
Futsal Table
classification in General statistics is common and correct by points in sports table (not alphabet). for alphabet you can click on !style="width:25%;"|Team and automatic clasify in alphabet. thanks i havent multi account but rename because wiki account policy attention that i recieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllFutsal (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
yeah sure, what about all those sock accounts I reported myself and got blocked ? you need a reminder "Amoli" ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
what is amoli and what your mean from sock? sock? clothes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllFutsal (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Asian Armwrestling Championship
what is your problem? are you a wikipedia owner ?
Someone who stands against vandalizers, and sockpuppets, those who ruin wikipedia by creating nonsense articles, who blocked you so many times before. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
who is amoooooooooooooooooooooli?
Why have you been harassing me for three years because he thought that I'm Parsa Amoli? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Injusticefighting (talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
because of mohsen1248 think i am parsa amoli . Do you have conscience and humanity?
you can see my documents at :https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanjagenije#i_am_Princess_of_fighting_to_injustice
Summary
Mohsen 1248 had trouble using Parsa Amoli
He thought I was a user threatening me, and the documentation of the conversations is available in the archive. On my constructive efforts and my articles with the hatred of Parsa Amoli, removed and my efforts to maintain my health, I concluded that I am a saboteur.
Are you conscientious and honest or not?
i and show all of my documents to you and other admins. step by step.
If justice does not matter to you, this is another argument.
You have been wasting me and you time for three years and you are protected by a guilty madman called Mohsen 1248.
I expect to listen to my argument in a quiet and fair space, and if you are convinced, take help. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Injusticefighting (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
|
|
File:Mali grb-Vranja.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Jcb (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
documents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rowingasia/Archive
i create one account rowing asia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rowingasia
06:33, 24 September 2015 (diff | hist) (+2,331) N User talk:Rowingasia .
i have one account. This account has no other edited articles and has left.
but i dont like this name rowingasia. and havent action with this.
after more , 20:39, 10 February 2016 (diff | hist) (+3,613) FIFA Futsal World Cup 6 month later i creat allfusal and have great and good edits on wikipedia sports article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Injusticefighting (talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.251.89.66 (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I have Met this Metropolitan in person I have gone to his services, I am asking why this is being removed when I seen all the proof check his websites he is not a huge jurisdiction but he is they are based out of Africa please consider the facts before you do something like deleting his picture.173.251.89.66 16:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)-www.agioccc.comhttps://en.everybodywiki.com/Autocephalous_Greek_International_Orthodox_Christian_Church_Canonical
Hello My name is Thomas I am not even part of this jurisdiction and I have come across this jurisdiction and they are based out of India Africa America Philippines I dont understand why we cant write about him he just gave trump a Doctor degree in Divinity and the coronation was july 14 2019 and had a Holy Synod meeting have pictures to prove such a thing and video.173.251.89.66 13:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC) https://www.agioccc.com https://www.saintmarksorthodoxcolegeseminary.education 173.251.89.66 13:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Comic pages
I saw that you bookmarked some comic pages that I categorized, checked and some are really in trouble, but others are from authors died in the 1940s, I'm categorizing correctly.Hyju (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
|
|
File:Katya Sambuca HTMLAudioElement.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. |
2605:8D80:5A0:65CC:BDAD:8E82:DDBF:E304 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
|
|
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Stevan Kragujevic, Dragoljub Micunovic Skupstina 90tih.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you. |
Yours sincerely, — Racconish 💬 07:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
an example of your admins mistake
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Asian_Sambo_Championships
my article was deleted ...!!!! as parsa amoli!!!!! my article was deleted because of another user before banned. your admins suffer me over 3 years instead of other person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Injusticefighting (talk • contribs) 10:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
|
|
File:Stevan Kragujevic, Dragoljub Micunovic Skupstina 90tih.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. |
Bojan Talk 19:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Unblock
|
|
File:COA Grocka.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
No.cilepogača (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|
|
File:10000-Dinara-1963.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. |
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|
|
File:50000-Dinara-1963.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. |
