User talk:Veverve

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Veverve!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−
First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
  • You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
  • To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
  • You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
  • There are several tools to upload files.
  • Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.
Made a mistake?
  • Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
  • Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Veverve, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Unification council of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine vidomosti.kiev.ua 135.jpg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:
  • use in any work, regardless of content
  • creation of derivative works
  • commercial use
  • free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Sealle (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove warnings[edit]

català ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello. This is a reminder for you that it is important to address the identified issues instead of simply removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page. Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history. You are encouraged instead to archive past discussions according to our community guidelines. You can have this done automatically for you -- simply place {{subst:User:Jeff G./usertalksetup}} or {{subst:autoarchive resolved section/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and then old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for more details). If you have received warnings for copyright issues, please familiarize yourself with our policy on licensing. You can also ask for help at the village pump or the help desk if you need assistance.

Sealle (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:PrincipiaSynGen.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:PrincipiaSynGen.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Book cover
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

— JJMC89 (T·C) 06:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustav Vasas bibel 1541 - title page 3 (cropped).jpg[edit]

Done as requested. PawełMM (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Didym (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Didym (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Didym (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. --Didym (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bibles[edit]

Why have you done this? It's obviously controversial since "Bibles" are instances of "The Bible". Please consider reverting. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: I believe it was confusing to have both categories, and both were used in the same way, i.e. nobody made the distinction you made. This is why I decided to merge both categories into the one which was linked to WP. Veverve (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is more than one Bible- the Christian and the Hebrew at least. So "The Bible" I agree is less than helpful, but under "Bibles" should be subcategories for "The Holy Bible" and "The Hebrew Bible". So File:Chained Bible, Hornby Library.jpg should be in some subcat for examples/instances of The Holy Bible. That's how I see it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: The Jewish bible is Category:Tanakh. Again, in practice no one uses the difference you make between "Bible" and "Bibles" on WC. Veverve (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"WC"? Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: WikiCommons. Veverve (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We just call it "Commons". But I'm not surprised. People very often don't think deeply enough about what they're doing when they create categories. This may be unfamiliarity with the finer points of the English language, but it's more often "Oh, this'll do, we don't need precision here". We do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi Bible[edit]

Hi Veverve,

Can you please stop reverting edits rather than discussing or I need to report this editwarring? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 11:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi> the deletion request > should it be removed from this file?[edit]

Hi. Based on your comments on the discussion page of this file it seems that the deletion requested should not have been made. See

File:Baptism-drawing-1.jpg
baptism drawing with license to share

... The request has been there since April but it seems you changed your mind. Who would remove the deletion request off the file? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant: Yes, it was a mistake to nominate this image. Veverve (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the image might have come from the Good News for Modern Man Bible too, checked every page this morning and it's not in that bible. Thanks. Hopefully someone will close the nomination. Have a nice day.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibel Pattloch.jpg[edit]

Lieber Veverve, danke, dass Du mich auf die Urheberrechtsverletzung aufmerksam gemacht hast, sie war in keiner Weise von mir beabsichtigt, und ich entschuldige mich ausdrücklich dafür. Die Bibel ist mein Eigentum, und ich war in dem Irrglauben, das Cover scannen zu dürfen. Mir war nicht bewusst, dass dieser Titeltext urheberrechtlich geschützt ist, sonst hätte ich ihn sicherlich nicht gescannt. Das Ganze ist mir sehr unangenehm, deshalb lasse das hochgeladene Bild bitte schnellstens löschen. Das Bild habe ich bereits aus dem Artikel "Einheitsübersetzung" entfernt. Herzlichen Dank und nochmals sorry! Mabit1 (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabit1: no problem! An admin should delete the image in a few hours since it has been marked for speedy deletion. As for copyright rules on Commons, see: Commons:Copyright rules#not OK and Commons:Threshold of originality. Veverve (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Danke! Mabit1 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your request[edit]

Hi, I saw your help on the Greek characters, thanks. For your request Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Map_of_schisms_from_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church, if no one has picked it up in a a week or so you can ping me and I will take it. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: It has been a bit less than one week. Are you still available to take this request? Veverve (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contact?[edit]

I got an email that you left me a message but I couldn't find any. If you do please add a new topic. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: I simply modified one of my previous requests, one for which you told me to wait 15 days. I did not know it would notify you, sorry. While I am at it, do you still want me to wait, or can I revive my three requests now? Veverve (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can work on them now, please start a new topic. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please rename all graphics[edit]

Please rename all graphics to be consistent.--93.193.170.30 10:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Veverve (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you missed the chinese, german, portuguese and swahili versions.--93.193.170.30 10:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bible × lectionary[edit]

Hi, I react to this diff. Although the description contains the word "bible", the book in the picture would be more likely a lectionary. We cannot read, what is in the book, but it definitely ressembles of a red-and-black typesetting of a lectionary (2, 3) or, possibly, a missal. — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Draceane: I can read most of the last line, it says "homme à sa perfection dans le Christ". It looks like it is a lectionary, and it is confirmed here and here (the latter contains most of the text of the right page). You were right, I will revert my edit and change the description. Veverve (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert[edit]

Hi, I totally agree with your revert on Main schisms from the Russian Orthodox Church (2021). User JoKalliauer has explained to me (he has deep code knowledge) and I think I can use some of this knowledge later on. I'm not a code person I depend on what I see in Inkscape for my work here. Sometimes I just have to accept I can't get it perfect and a lot of this is also viewer dependent; type of system, browser, fonts etc. So I hope you are fine with all of this. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: No problem, you have done a tremeldous job already! Veverve (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: Also, out of pure curiosity, how is Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Convert_Almohad_banner_to_SVG progessing? Veverve (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's coming there, slowly. I'm working on the text pieces now then it will be done, hopefully. It's a lot of work with it. --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic[edit]

Hi, I tried to put "Illustration of: " in Arabic in this file File:Banner of the Moors (1212).svg but you changed something. I don't speak or write Arabic so I just made a guess, probably wrong? --always ping me--Goran tek-en (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: you had written something in Arabic outside the Information template, so I removed it. Sorry if it bothered you. Veverve (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Category talk:Orthodox crosses#May 2021[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Orthodox crosses#May 2021. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Lacroix[edit]

Bonjour elle est dans ma collection personnelle. Plus de 70 ans d'âge donc hors droits bonne journée. Thomon (d) 12:04 10 juillet 2021 (CET).

Reworked[edit]

I did think I started this somewhere but I cant find it now.

@Goran tek-en:
1)
Could you move those two symbols a bit more to the right, like this?
Could you move "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church" a bit more to the left, like this?
"Serbian Orthodox Church", "1346", and "Serbian Patriarchate of Peć" should be in bold here.
"927" and "1018", are not in bold, they should be.
the "/" here, here and here should not be in bold (maybe the are not in bold and I do not see it properly).
The feedback for the other timelines will come soon. Veverve (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en:
2) I see no problem.
3) This line should look like this.
Veverve (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of the History of the main autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches, E. Orthodox point of view (2021)-2.
1) I moved stuff around 1936-1948 instead so check.
3) This is how the line has been before, should I change? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en:
1) It is good now.
3) Yes, change it please. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done New versions uploaded. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: The Serbian timeline in 2,560 × 895 pixels is put atop of the screen. Other resolutions do not have this problem. Veverve (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean, I can't see anything strange on that link. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: It must be due to my computer's page zoom, then. Veverve (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustav Vasas bibel 1541 (1938 reprint) - title page (cropped).jpg[edit]

File:Gustav Vasas bibel 1541 (1938 reprint) - title page (cropped).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 ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a week. The reason for the block is creation of bad deletion requests after complaint on administrator's noticeboard (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Taivo (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "I have only been told indirectly that my DRs were "questionable". I have, despite what the blocking message says, never received any "warnings", despite asking the person who requested admin intervention. I would not have made those DR, had I been aware of the COM:INUSE policy."
Unblock reason: "Now you are aware of INUSE policy and in my opinion you can be unblocked. Taivo (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
This template should be archived normally.
 (Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ suomi ∙ हिन्दी ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

By the way, the unblock instruction states:

add {{unblock|your reason for requesting an unblock here}} to your user talk page. Blocked users may edit their own user talk page, unless specifically disallowed from doing so, e.g., for incivility. If you are not logged in as a registered user, use the talk page for your IP address.

It is is wrong: one has to add "{{unblock|1=your reason for requesting an unblock here}}", otherwise the reason is not displayed. Veverve (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the value of an unnamed parameter contains equal signs, always the form parameter=value needs to be used. This should be well-known, but anyway I clarified the template documentation about that point. -- sarang♥사랑 05:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: could you review my unblock request (and possibly take into accouny my 17:25 feedback)? Veverve (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio tagging[edit]

Regarding File:Saarlandenwappen.gif, please take a look again at COM:CSD#F1: "Content is a clear copyright violation, with evidence that no Commons-compatible licensing has been issued by the copyright holder. This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality." Your rationale, "Looks like a poor scan and not an original work", reads more like mere suspicion, which is a valid reason to open a DR but should never be used for speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kievan Rus in 1237 (ru).svg[edit]

Здравствуйте. Причина отмены? Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Зайцев Руслан Викторович: the Kievan Rus is not Russia. Veverve (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

мини|лево|250п|the Russia is not Kievan Rus. Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Зайцев Руслан Викторович: It is written "Русь" as in w:ru:Киевская Русь, not "Россия" on the map. Why do you want to say "Russian"? Generally, are you POV-pushing for the Kievan Rus to be called "Russia"? Veverve (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ru:ВП:ВПНЕАИ Несмотря на то что статьи Википедии должны основываться на авторитетных источниках, сама Википедия не является авторитетным источником. Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ru:Россия (название) Впер­вые назв. «Ро­сия» на греч. яз. (‘Ρωσία ) ис­поль­зо­ва­но ви­зант. имп. Кон­стан­ти­ном VII Баг­ря­но­род­ным в трак­та­те «Об управ­ле­нии им­пе­ри­ей» (сер. 9 в.) для обо­зна­че­ния Древ­не­рус­ско­го го­су­дар­ст­ва[1]. ru:Большая российская энциклопедия Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Зайцев Руслан Викторович: So, you are POV-pushing that the Kievan Rus' is actually Russia. Please have a look at ru:Русь (название)
I have started a discussion at File talk:Historical map of Russian, 1054-1240.gif. Veverve (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ru:ВП:ВПНЕАИ Несмотря на то что статьи Википедии должны основываться на авторитетных источниках, сама Википедия не является авторитетным источником. Роусь, romanized: Rusĭ, or роусьскаѧ землѧ, romanized: rusĭskaę zemlę, "Rus' land" Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Зайцев Руслан Викторович: "Russia" is not the Rus'/Kievan Rus, just like Poland or Ukraine are not the Rus'/Kievan Rus', and Italy is not the Roman empire. Those are different names for different periods for different entities. Veverve (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Россия" - это Русь, точно не, Польша или Украина. Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Зайцев Руслан Викторович: "Россия" is not "Русь" either! Veverve (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
de:Russland, nl:Russland. Роусь, romanized: Rusĭ, or роусьскаѧ землѧ, romanized: rusĭskaę zemlę, "Rus' land" Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Зайцев Руслан Викторович: I am getting tired of your POV-pushing based on play on words. w:de:Russland ≠ w:de:Kiewer Rus (you can try with every WP, Russian WP included). Veverve (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Пиши на русском языке. Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Зайцев Руслан Викторович: I do not speak Russian, all I can do is more or less read Cyrilic alphabet and understand a few words. I have pinged a Russian native speaker at File talk:Historical map of Russian, 1054-1240.gif. Veverve (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://translate.yandex.ru/?from=tabbar&text=%D0%94%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&lang=ru-en Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Зайцев Руслан Викторович: I know it is. It is also the ancestor of Ukraine, Belarus, and some Baltic countries (and the Novgorod Republic); so calling it Russia 1) goes against the very title of the map, 2) is POV-pushing. Veverve (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
НЕТ, Русь это Русская земля, это "Rus' land" "Russia" Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Фев­раль­ская ре­во­лю­ция 1917 от­кры­ла воз­мож­ность ак­тив­ной по­ли­тич. дея­тель­но­сти для ру­ко­во­ди­те­лей укр. нац. дви­же­ния (как на­хо­див­ших­ся в Рос­сии, так и вер­нув­ших­ся из Ав­ст­ро-Венг­рии). 7(20).3.1917 на со­бра­нии Т-ва укр. прог­рес­си­стов в Кие­ве был соз­дан пред­ста­вит. ор­ган – Цен­траль­ная ра­да во гла­ве с М. С. Гру­шев­ским. 11–12(24–25).12.1917 в Харь­ко­ве со­сто­ял­ся 1-й Все­ук­ра­ин­ский съезд Со­ве­тов, объ­я­вив­ший о соз­да­нии Укр. нар. рес­пуб­ли­ки Со­ве­тов. 4-м Уни­вер­са­лом Центр. ра­ды 9(22).1.1918 бы­ла про­воз­гла­ше­на не­за­ви­си­мость Ук­ра­ин­ской на­род­ной рес­пуб­ли­ки (УНР)[2]. Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

По­сле Февральской ре­во­лю­ции 1917 власть в Белоруссии пе­ре­шла к ме­ст­ным ор­га­нам вла­сти, пред­став­ляв­шим Вре­мен­ное пра­ви­тель­ст­во. В Белоруссии соз­да­ва­лись Со­ве­ты ра­бо­чих и сол­дат­ских де­пу­та­тов (в мар­те – апреле 1917 офор­ми­лось 37 Со­ве­тов). Ве­ду­щую роль в них иг­ра­ли эсе­ры, мень­ше­ви­ки, бун­дов­цы. Во­зоб­но­ви­ла свою дея­тель­ность БСГ. В мар­те 1917 в Мин­ске со­сто­ял­ся съезд бе­ло­русских национальных ор­га­ни­за­ций, ко­то­рый вы­дви­нул тре­бо­ва­ния государственной ав­то­но­мии Белоруссии в со­ста­ве Российской Фе­де­ра­тив­ной Де­мо­кра­тической Рес­пуб­ли­ки и из­брал ис­пол­нительный ор­ган – Бе­ло­русский национальный комитет (БНК), пред­се­да­те­лем ко­то­ро­го стал Р. Скир­мунт. По ини­циа­ти­ве БСГ в ию­ле 1917 со­сто­ял­ся съезд бе­ло­русских ор­га­ни­за­ций и пар­тий, вме­сто БНК соз­да­на Центральная ра­да бе­ло­русских ор­га­ни­за­ций, ре­ор­га­ни­зо­ван­ная в Ве­ли­кую бе­ло­русскую ра­ду (ВБР, см. Бе­ло­рус­ские ра­ды).

В один день с по­бе­дой Октябрьской ре­во­лю­ции 1917 в Пет­ро­гра­де [25.10(7.11).1917] советская власть бы­ла про­воз­гла­ше­на в Мин­ске; функ­ции управ­ле­ния Белоруссией взял на се­бя ВРК Северо-Западной об­лас­ти и Западного фрон­та. В но­ябре 1917 – январе 1918 на съез­дах сол­дат­ских, ра­бо­чих и кре­сть­ян­ских де­пу­та­тов Мин­ской, Мо­ги­лёв­ской, Ви­теб­ской гу­бер­ний, 2-м съез­де сол­дат­ских ко­ми­те­тов ар­мий Западного фрон­та бы­ла при­зна­на советская власть. 26.11(9.12).1917 соз­дан Об­ласт­ной ис­пол­нительный комитет Со­ве­тов ра­бо­чих, сол­дат­ских и кре­сть­ян­ских де­пу­та­тов Западной об­лас­ти и фрон­та (Обл­ис­пол­зап), под ру­ко­вод­ст­вом ко­то­ро­го на­ча­лось ус­та­нов­ле­ние советской вла­сти в Восточной и Центральной Белоруссии. В от­вет ВБР в декабре 1917 в Мин­ске со­зва­ла 1-й Все­бело­русский съезд (кон­гресс), на ко­то­ром при­зва­ла к борь­бе с советской вла­стью и по­тре­бо­ва­ла для Белоруссии ав­то­но­мии в рам­ках бур­жу­аз­но-де­мо­кра­тического Российского государства. Ру­ко­во­дство Обл­ис­пол­за­па ра­зо­гна­ло этот съезд. В феврале 1918 германскими вой­ска­ми бы­ла ок­ку­пи­ро­ва­на поч­ти вся тер­ри­то­рия Белоруссии (до конца 1918). В мар­те 1918 про­воз­гла­ше­на Бе­ло­рус­ская На­род­ная Рес­пуб­ли­ка (БНР)[3].Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[4] Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Зайцев Руслан Викторович: please first get a consensus in all other Wikiprojects that the expression "Rus' " or "Kievan Rus' " redirect to "Russia".
en:United Kingdom, en:Kingdom of Great Britain, en:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Чръный человек: I am at my wit's end here. Could you confirm that I am facing a POV-pusher or is it a WP ru consensus? Veverve (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalism![edit]

Раджу припинити свій путінський вандалізм, бо знову будеш заблокований! --Микола Василечко (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Микола Василечко: there is no problem with my deletion proposals from what I see. Which policy are you invoking? I have listed mines in my deletion proposals. Veverve (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Микола Василечко: as I explained on your talk page, I did not intend to nominate your image as a copyright violation. Sorry! Veverve (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Микола Василечко: and what are you saying on my DRs? I am not blocked, and you have not explained here anything about those DRs. Veverve (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a month. The reason for the block is creating bad deletion requests after warnings (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Taivo (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: how are they bad? I genuinely do no understand. None of the images I nominated are used in a main space. Veverve (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COM:INUSE says: "The uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project." Taivo (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: how can all those be considered to be for personnal use and not simply as using WCommons as a free webhost to host politically engaged, personal (user) militant content? There is no way to tell. Микола Василечко (whose images I nominated) never gave this personnal use argument. Two of those images at Commons:Deletion requests/File:STOP Putin.png even have clear instructions by the uploader to use them during political demonstrations. And since 10 of those images were uploaded by the same user, User:Birkho, how can they be considered "small numbers of images"?
Anyone active or previously active on a project could game the system if there is no limit to how the part of COM:INUSE you quoted is used. Veverve (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every Commons image can be used for every purpose, including political demonstrations. What is "small number of images", this is not specified, but considering, that Birkho account was created 8 years ago and (s)he has almost 500 edits in Commons, 10 files is not too much. Taivo (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to chime in and say good block. The File:Krakow war protest 9.jpg is properly licensed and attributed, yet Veverve tagged it as speedy delete. The speedy was, without a doubt, made in bad faith and this shows a clear pattern of misuse. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OhanaUnited: I answer you here since I am blocked. The picture being under CC 4.0 does not mean its content is. Taking a picture of a copyrighted material and releasing the picture under CC 4.0 does not change the copyright of the content of the picture. See for example cases where no Commons:Freedom of panorama exists. Veverve (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OhanaUnited: looking at this makes me feel you should have thought twice before judging me so harshly and semi-en:WP:GRAVEDANCE. We can also say: good deletion, as it fits a WCommons policy. I have never interacted with you before today, no need to be so judgemental. Veverve (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't paint yourself as the victim here. This is not grave dancing. I wouldn't have said anything and would have gone through undeleteion request if you weren't blocked twice in a year for creating bad deletion requests (including some that were filed today that led to your second block). OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Премиерот Ковачевски во дводневна посета во Рим и Ватикан -23.05.2022- (52092992938).jpg[edit]

File:Премиерот Ковачевски во дводневна посета во Рим и Ватикан -23.05.2022- (52092992938).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 ∙ +/−

~ R.T.G 09:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ русский ∙ 日本語 ∙ +/−

You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users’ contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.

--Yann (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--Yann (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: What edit war am I supposed to be in? I have not done any edit after your warning which was one minute ago. Veverve (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[5], and seeing the amount of warnings above, you need at least to take a long break from Commons. Yann (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: how can two reverts be considered an edit war? This is clearly abusive, and your justification "Edit warring after warnings" one minute after putting a warning without me making any edit, is inconsistent.
and seeing the amount of warnings above which ones? I have not received any warning since my last block apart from yours. Veverve (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that is it Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Category:Rashism which got me blocked. Again, none of what I did can be considered edit-warring. A.Savin and me disagreed and I reverted them twice, then took it to the talk page. Veverve (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Category:Rashism got me blocked. However, none of what I did can be considered edit-warring. A.Savin and me disagreed yesterday and I reverted them twice, then I took it to the talk page at A.Savin's request. Yet, exactly 2 minutes after making said request of taking it to the talk page, A.Savin unfairly accused me of edit-warring at the Administrators' noticeboard. Yann has blocked me due to this accusation.
Yann, who blocked me, has stated as the block reason "Edit warring after warnings", but I did not make any edit between Yann's 13:25, 8 July 2022 warning and their following 13:26, 8 July 2022 (one minute later) blocking. Yann has also stated that due to alleged previous warnings, I needed at least to take a long break from Commons. However I had received no warning since my May 2022 1-month ban (which incidently also means I recently took a long "break" already, after which I did numerous edits - including working with Yann - for which I never had any dispute), and had never received any warning for edit-warring until Yann's warning. Veverve (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)"[reply]
Decline reason: "This is disingenuous. You unambiguously edit-warred on Category:Rashism; for example: You did this despite previous warnings both on the Commons and on sister projects, and indeed an en.wiki block for edit warring (!!!) on 17 March 2022. That Yann issued you yet another warning on 8 July 2022 after the fact is of no relevance, and warnings do magically disappear or reset upon a block ("I had received no warning since my May 2022 1-month ban.") COM:BP requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. If you are unprepared to do this, you should be prepared to remain blocked. Эlcobbola talk 19:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
 (Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

This is a gratuitous, baseless claim of AGENDA. And I have thousands of contributions and dozens of uploads on WCommons over four years, so the NOTHERE is even more ridiculous. Coming from an admin of this project, this is an even more regrettable behaviour than from a normal user. Veverve (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elcobbola: I do not see how what I do on other WProjects or how sanctions I may have received on said other WProjects are relevant in any way whatsoever to this case.
I do no see how this two-years-old (!!) message constitutes a warning. It was not edit-warring in 2020, as you have seen by checking [6]. The user wanted to add a redundant category and claimed our disagreement was edit-warring; to me, it is was vain threat intended to pressure me and not a warning. Anybody can issue such vain threats in cases of disagreements.
I did remove a category on 30 April (more than two months ago!!), so what? No one opposed. People, including you, remove categories previously added all the time on WCommons. And none of what I did violate en:WP:3RR.
What behaviour should I discontinue? Should I only edit categories on WCommons every 6 months? Can I only revert people once? Veverve (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double-standard[edit]

@Achim55: you wrote here:
>It's not funny but just defamatory bullshit not worthy of being part of an encyclopedia. Additional, Commons is not your personal free web host.
Yet, when I told roughly the same thing here - that WCommons is not your free webhost for users' political opinions -, I was told by Taivo that WCommons indeed was a free webhost for users' political opinions: The uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project and Every Commons image can be used for every purpose, including political demonstrations. What is "small number of images", this is not specified. Besides, I was banned for COM:INUSE by Taivo for, among other nominations, nominating the very same image which is currently being considered for deletion in a second nomination while being for the second time still only in use on the very same page (i.e. Birkho's user page).
How was the 1-month ban I received not a double-standard? Veverve (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest...[edit]

@Cplakidas: I suggest:

for the files File:Byzantine imperial flag, 14th century.svg and File:Byzantine imperial flag, 14th century according to the Book of All Kingdoms.png: replace Category:Libro del conocimiento and Category:Flags of the Palaiologos dynasty, by Category:Flag of Constantinople from the Book of All Kingdoms. Then, change the descriptive categories of Category:Flag of Constantinople from the Book of All Kingdoms so that they match the two different flags.

I would do it myself, but I am currently blocked. Veverve (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Церковь в Уницах.jpg[edit]

File:Церковь в Уницах.jpg => Category:Church in Units => Category:Churches in Tver Eparchy.
? File:Церковь в Уницах.jpg => Category:Churches in Tver Eparchy.
Ыфь77 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ыфь77: not every church in Units is part of this eparchy: Old Believers, Catholics, etc. also exist. I have edited the Category:Church in Units to reflect this. Veverve (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting[edit]

Happy to cross you. Thanks Komavo (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inside text[edit]

What does it mean for you "inside text"? . Take a look here on what those "text" categories are -> depictions of a specific word. Regards. Strakhov (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Strakhov: ah, sorry, my bad! Veverve (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine flag reversion[edit]

Why did you revert the Byzantine Palaiologos flags? If you want the B letter version, why not consider creating new files instead of reverting the original files? Angelgreat (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Angelgreat: Those are corrections, so the files should not be split. Veverve (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Even so, consider creating a discussion on the talk page on whether the old design or new design should be used or to split the files. The current design seems a bit bland. Angelgreat (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Angelgreat: The current design is more historically accurate. Veverve (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which Catherine?[edit]

Hi Veverve, what do you think about this image? (Also known as File:MarriageCath.jpg)

Are you able to discover whether it depicts Catherine of Siena or Catherine de Ricci? Or someone else? For bonus points, if it is not Catherine of Siena, could that still be Raymond of Capua looking on from the viewer's right side? Elizium23 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Hello. Sorry for your indef ban on WPen.
According to this article (p. 157), it is indeed Catherine of Ricci, and this painting was made to commemorate the future canonisation of Catherine of Ricci which was about to take place at the time. Veverve (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Next block will be indef. See report on French Wikisource. --Yann (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were already blocked 3 times for other issues. You didn't stop disruptive renamings after the report on the French Wikisource. Yann (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "1) I do not see how a community from another Wikiproject has the right ask their admin on their project who also happens to be an admin on WCommons to block me from doing good work on WikiCommons. Wikisourcefr does not have the right to make a travail de sape (an undermining) of the works on other Wikiprojects, and render vain hours of works. The Wikiosurcefr community has the mean (Pywikibot) to synchronise with the new file names on WCommons, but appears to simply refuses to do so in the name blind conservatism, of maintaining their own statu quo, and thus they unjustly attacked me for my work on WCommons (they also unjustly blocked me on Wikisource for my work on WCommons, they seem to be led by their contempt for me, you can read more of the entire thread I linked previously if you need some proof).

2) Yann states (see above): You didn't stop disruptive renamings after the report on the French Wikisource. However, after the first discussion on Wikisourcefr, I did not ask for any other renaming of Nietzsche's work in French (as can be seen here, my last move request of French Nietzsche is from 04:28, 27 December 2022, while the first complaint on Wikisourcefr is 17 hours later).

3) Yann has himself stated they did not see any recent problematic move by me, but instead relied on the Wikisource fr CommonsDelinker logs, following a fallacious claim of the Wikisourcefr admin Le ciel est par dessus le toit on Wikisourcefr that I would have used CommonsDelinker to make more renamings after the 27 December 2022 complaints. I did not use CommonsDelinker, I do not even know how it could be used in any way by an user on Wikisourcefr.

4) My work of renaming on WikiCommons cannot in any way be qualified as vandalism (intentional work against the goal of the project). The renamings Yann has undone (File:Nietzsche - Aurore.djvu, File:Nietzsche - Par delà le bien et le mal.djvu, File:Nietzsche - La Généalogie de la morale.djvu) should be put back."
Decline reason: "Clearly doesn't understand the situation and the many problems he generated (which is clearly vandalism even if unintentional) and the renaming should absolutely not "be put back". I agree with Yann "Next block will be indef". VIGNERON (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
 (Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

VIGNERON, you are also a Wikisourcefr admin. Also en:Wikipedia:Vandalism is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". All I see is a community having its way against me in a personnal vendetta. Veverve (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erreurs[edit]

@Yann: je te signale qu'à File:Nietzsche - Considérations inactuelles, I.djvu, tu as introduis des erreurs de liens WikiCommons : "Start this Book", et "vol. 2" du paramètre Other versions, ne redirigent pas vers le bon volume. Veverve (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C'est un problème de cache. Yann (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis re-elected![edit]

So did you hear about the conclave yesterday? The word on the street is that they re-elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope. It was a total upset because everyone was expecting Br. Bugnolo to elect himself. Anyway, I don't know if there's an article in there; it's a bunch of nobodies probably with no SIGCOV. But an interesting footnote to Church history, perhaps someday. Elizium23 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I have seen this. It was... unexpected to say the least. Veverve (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed[edit]

@Remitamine: what is your source for the higher resolution version for File:VAKSU.jpg? Sources should always be given in those cases. Veverve (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment - again[edit]

@P199: thanks for getting rid of the harassment (even tough I see my harasser has not received even a warning for their behaviour towards me).

However, I have now noticed that the same user has credited me at the 00:14, 19 February 2023 upload summary of File:Major denominational groups and heresies within Christianity.svg, as requesting a change. I did not request any change to this image. I think this is also part of a form of harassment from this user, and I would like for this upload summary to be removed. Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources chrétiennes[edit]

@Joostik: regarding this edit: books published at the Sources chrétiennes are published both in French and in the original language (source). Therefore, you were wrong in your change of category. Veverve (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward Vatican Flag moments[edit]

Shoutouts to @Ravenpuff, @Pbritti, @SajoR, and @Roberto221

Folks, I think we can legitimately cast doubt on CNA's article about how we did it wrong. Jonah McKeown is an expert only in journalism, not heraldry or vexillology. His chosen "flag guy" expert has a website and the book he wrote is 100% available online. Website figure 1.9, sure enough, displays the "Official Constitution 2023" version, but the article has Father Becker on record stating that the descriptions themselves are "ambiguous" -- so how does he define "accuracy" in this case? Figure 2.10 shows a red-lined tiara. There are plenty others like it: I count at least ten in his book's chapter on 1870-present, including the yellow keys, red lining, even red lappets.

The USA flew an "incorrect flag" to the Moon and back.

Heraldry is an inexact art form: this is common knowledge. Pope Francis will not send twelve Swiss Guard to arrest us all. Father Becker refers to "variants". One reporter has registered his opinion that Wikipedia is "incorrect" and that we've been instrumental in spreading misinformation. That seems to be an extraordinary claim. Elizium23 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: the official 1929 model in black and white (PDF p. 35) has no colour inside the tiara that could indicate it should not be white. The appendice to the 2023 Fundamental Law has the inside of the tiara for the flag in white. This is all I can say on the matter, for I am not an expert.
his book's chapter on 1870-present: the link is "AccessDeniedRequest has expired" to me. Veverve (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blazon in the Fundamental Law is: Drappo partito di giallo e bianco, col bianco caricato al centro delle Chiavi incrociate (decussate) sormontate del Triregno. It makes no reference to or (gold) or gules/sanguine (red) for that matter. So, Father Becker is correct! Quite ambiguous! Let's make a flag with vert (green) cords and see how that flies! Elizium23 (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toujours bloqué[edit]

@Yann: mon blocage est censé avoir expiré hier (à "19:50, 8 July 2023"), cependant je suis toujours bloqué. Veverve (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le blocage expirera le 8 juillet. Yann (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
En effet, erreur de ma part. Veverve (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrait de catégories sur la page de Daniel Conversano[edit]

Bonjour, Je vous contacte par rapport à vos modifications sur la page Category:Daniel Conversano. Il s'agit des diffs : [7] et [8], où les catégories sont supprimées sans explication. Est-ce qu'il y avait une raison de les retirer ? Merci par avance pour votre réponse. Category:Daniel Conversano CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ce sont des erreurs, j'imagine (ça fait plus d'un an) que j'ai dû considérer à tort que ces catégories étaient englobées dans d'autres catégories auxquelles Category:Daniel Conversano appartenait. Veverve (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Файлы удалены не законно[edit]

Это мои произведения, файлы удалены не законно!!! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_A.byk77 A.byk77 A.byk77 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation categories[edit]

Hi. We don't add files or categories to disambiguation categories, they are solely for listing categories that need to be disambiguated. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: now I see the problem: the target should have been Category:Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.
You should have disambiguated instead of removing the category... Veverve (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a knowledge issue, and it is not immediately or overtly obvious which is appropriate. If a category is wrong, I will do best effort to identify where it goes, and if I cannot, then it will be removed from the disambiguation category. Please don't point the finger at me as my fault. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Vatican City State - 2023 version.svg: head of the silver key[edit]

In the file: Coat of arms of Vatican City State - 2023 version.svg, the head of the silver key (bottom right) is skewed relative to the shaft of the key. Goran tek-en may have copied the key head from the head of the gold key (bottom left) and moved it to the silver key end (and changed the color). The fact that it has been copied and immediately moved can be seen by the shading of the key ends: they are on the same side.

After copying, the image should have been changed to a mirror image and only then moved to a new location.

Sincerely, Finlands län (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlands län @Veverve Finlands län, I have showed you (several times) the source and I do it again here and in this you can see that the shadow is the same as in my svg. Why should I then rotate the shadow? --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, look carefully at the file: Coat of arms of Vatican City State - 2023 version.svg you have made. The "four-leaf clovers", i.e. the empty parts of the heads of the keys, are slightly tilted to the right, i.e. in a different position than in the source, where they are straight. Also user Abzeronow has stated: "...as you say, the round part of the silver key is slightly off." That's why it looks like the head of the silver key is crooked to the shaft.
However, it should be noted that even the official coat of arms of Vatican has a mistake. The shadows/edges of the key heads should point straight down, just like the shadows/edges of the key bits. Look at e.g. the coat of arms Holy See.
Sincerely, --Finlands län (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlands län How can you be sure "official coat of arms of Vatican has a mistake" and that it's not supposed to be like that. How are you/we to change there official images. Why are you so hard on this, what is your goal, what do you want to achieve??? --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"How can you be sure "official coat of arms of Vatican has a mistake" and that it's not supposed to be like that."
Please, look at the direction of the shadows/edges of the key heads here and here. By the way, the direction of the shadows/edges of the key heads is somehow more logical also in the flag you made.
"How are you/we to change there official images."
I have thought of contacting the apostolic nunciature, will you join? Here is the homepage: nunciature.se.
"Why are you so hard on this, what is your goal, what do you want to achieve???"'
First I asked you to look at the the file of coat of arms you made and then I asked to compare it to this source: note the differences in the positions of the key heads. However, you have not admitted the slightest difference, though the user Abzeronow stated: "...the round part of the silver key is slightly off." I can't understand why you can't admit anything and make even slightest changes.
Wikipedia should be cooperation - not at all jealous about "own" files. None of us are perfect, but a little humility, please.
Sincerely, --Finlands län (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlands län: the image which serves as model should be closely followed. If you believe the Vatican's official model has a mistake, please contact the Vatican and ask them to publicly state there is a mistake and to publish the corrected version for all to see. If we have such information at our disposal, I would be happy to request for the correction to be made. Otherwise, I will continue to oppose you change.
Please understand that this is not against your analysis in itself, but that your analysis that the Vatican did not make an artistic choice but has made a mistake is en:WP:OR. Veverve (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlands län The images you are referring to are dated from 2007 and @Veverve requested a 2023 version which got the pdf as source. That is 16 years in between, don't you think things can have changed? --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, look at the differencies between the official coat of arms and the svg file made by Goran tek-en, especially the situation of the heads of the keys, +'s: Differencies.png: File:Differencies.png
Sincerely, --Finlands län (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlands län: those are indeed discrepancies with the original model. Thank you for providing an illustration to allow me to see them.

@Goran tek-en: as per File:Differencies.png, the two shafts, along with the two parts above the shafts around which a square is drawn: those should be corrected to fit the design of the original model. Could you correct them?
Please send the drafts like you do, so that I and Finlands län can have a look.
Once it is validated, can you upload the corrected version as a new version of File:Coat of arms of Vatican City State - 2023 version.svg?

After this change, everyone should be happy. Veverve (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your flexibility, Vevere. Not strictly belongs here, but as the Vatican coat of arms should be, especially the shadows/edges of the key heads - same like the shadows/edges of the key bits are, straight down: File:Coat of arms of Vatican City State - as it should be.svg
Sincerely, --Finlands län (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve @Finlands län
----
Those drafts are PNG versions of the original SVG file I'm working in and will upload to commons.
Those drafts are shown for proofreading only.
----
Please check and give me feedback on this Draft, thanks. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the draft. When you even will change the protrusions of the silver key head to the marked line File:Draft of Goran tek-en.png, it will be good.
Sincerely, --Finlands län (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: if you think Finlands län's feedback is legitimate, could you please perform the edit Finlands län has asked for the image? Veverve (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlands län
  • I will be back with a new draft.
--please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve @Finlands län
Vatican Draft-3. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, place the protrusions on the ends of the key according to the white lines: File:Vatican coat of arms, white lines.svg Thank you in advance. --Finlands län (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve @Finlands län
*When I interpret and convert a COA, illustration or whatever I always have the goal to get the feel and overall appearance of the source. As many sources are a scan, photo of a print, page or object it will be a bitmap. A bitmap, print or other physical things are extremely different from what a svg viewed on a screen is.
A bitmap, print or other physical objects are much more fuzzier than what a svg illustration is. You can zoom in on a svg and it is still sharp at any scale as opposed to a bitmap.
This, and other differences, between svg and bitmap means that you can’t just copy right off, because of the different appearances of the two formats.
We also have to take in consideration that we will mostly not know how the bitmap was created, the lightning, angel, perspective and things like that, so what the original source looked like we can not know exactly.
So to get the equivalent feel and overall appearance of the source you have to add and remove for it to work, also you have to consider what the original source could have looked like and make adjustments for this, this is my personal take on this subject.
Yes, the changes in your file (green lines) seem to be ok now: thank you very much. Then you only will implement the changes to the file: Coat of arms of Vatican City State - 2023 version.svg, please.
Sincerely, --Finlands län (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: please upload the new version at File:Coat of arms of Vatican City State - 2023 version.svg.
Now, hopefully, everything is all right for everyone. Veverve (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlands län: could you use Template:Speedydelete to request the speedy deletion of the images you have uploaded as temporary illustrations (File:Draft of Goran tek-en.png, File:Vatican coat of arms, white lines.svg, File:Differencies.png, and also possibly File:Coat of arms of Vatican City State - as it should be.svg), as per COM:NOTHOST and/or potential copyright violations? Veverve (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Finlands län (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve @Sariyr @Finlands län
✓ Done --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Veverve&oldid=864763529"