User talk:Ibn Battuta
 First steps tutorialOur first steps help file and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.  Getting helpMore information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
 Goodies, tips and tricks
 Made a mistake?
| |
| (P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) | ||
--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition
[edit] |
Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February. Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文（简体） | 中文（繁體） | +/− |
The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Unfassbar1891.png
[edit]You've got to imagine it from the point of view of a 19th-century upper-middle-class young woman. The place where she most often interacts with lieutenants is at formal social events like balls, where they're attired in their fancy-dress uniforms, and where the young ladies attending these events enjoy flirting and dancing with them. The particular attraction of lieutenants is that anybody with a lower military rank would be non-officers, and so belong to a lower social class (and thus would be completely ineligible as potential suitors), while many of those with a higher military rank would already be married. So when she wonders why anybody would be so hard-hearted as to kill a lieutenant, it's not out of a vague generalized non-specific benevolence, but rather because she vividly pictures them as she has encountered them, available eligible bachelors in their shiny fancy-dress uniforms, elegantly flirting with and flattering young ladies. All this would by no means obvious to the average 21st-century reader, which is why some explanation is required. Churchh 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I really like your explanation (BTW, it's not even so much an interpretation, but mostly a description of facts)--wouldn't it make sense to write that into the description field then, rather than pointing only to dashing guys in uniforms? --Ibn Battuta 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would have replied a lot sooner if you had replied on my user page instead of your own, but yes, that could be done. Churchh 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, I would've followed up on it "some day" :o) ... I guess it is not as common on the Commons to continue discussions on whichever page they are, unlike on some national Wikipedias. Sorry. I've hereby also added a respective info on my discussion page! :o) - Anyways, thanks for adding that info... --Ibn Battuta 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 12:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Thanks for your message; the picture was actually just meant as a working version before I would upload the eventual version, so I intentionally didn't indicate any license. Well, someone has added it, and currently there seems to be a problem with the other version, so now it's staying longer than planned... Anyway, thanks for the information!! --Ibn Battuta 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I realized that, since you happened to upload the xcf file previously, I actually could take a look at what you were doing and see what the problem might be. It appears that to get an 8 MB jpeg you must be saving the image at 100% quality; you almost never will want to do that with jpeg photos. Saving it at 90% quality reduces the file size to 3.5 MB, which is not too unreasonable for an image at this resolution, and not something that should cause the mediawiki software trouble. Given the amount of fine detail in this photo, it'd be a shame to lose anything by cutting the resolution, so I recommend uploading the image like that (full res, ~90% quality, I mean). --Davepape 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I had realized that in the meantime (after your helpful comments on the help page). I'm afraid I haven't quite understood what "% quality" means and had thus originally clicked on 100... (BTW, what does it mean?)
- I have now the 90% version and would upload it--I only wonder if I should request to have the prior (big) version deleted before I go ahead--there's no use in keeping that huge version eternally occupying space on the Wikimedia server as part of the history of the image, or is there?--Ibn Battuta 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- 75% is considered a reasonable "standard" default setting, and as you go past 95% toward 100%, the filesize starts increasing enormously without much real gain in quality. Not even 100% gives lossless compression -- if you want lossless compression, use PNG. Churchh 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting about the 100% - so, yes, what is "quality"? Is there a (comprehensible :o)) explanation somewhere on the Commons or elsewhere that you know of? And on a more practical note--should the original picture that we're talking about (the 8+ MB one) be deleted? --Ibn Battuta 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Um, thanks, and how about this image that has started it all? Request for deletion or not? --Ibn Battuta 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
ton message
[edit]bjr, j'ai complété les infos que tu demandais sur l'image d'épave Image:Wreck epave.JPG. Je l'ai prise fin 2006, sur les bords de Rance côté saint malo. Il y a toujours un chantier à cet endroit (réparation et petite construction), mais également une collection d'épaves qui se désagrègent doucement.cordialement.-tu peux me joindre plus facilement sur wikipedia (Klipper), je ne viens pas trop souvent sur commons.-Clipper 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Permissions
[edit]Il y a un gros paquet de mails non traités dans la file permissions... David.Monniaux 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- ... eh... c'est-à-dire quoi exactement? :o) ... qu'il est possible, mais il n'est pas possible de vérifier? --Ibn Battuta 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
re: village pump, a few days later...
[edit]Hi Ibn Battuta. thanks for your message. sorry if I was a bit terse in the discussion on the village pump. I am maybe a bit defensive since I wrote most of the texts for the different forms, and while I understand people like things to be the most convenient for them, that doesn't always help us minimise copyvios. So... please keep suggesting stuff, especially to improve usability, and if I don't give a good reason why it shouldn't/can't be done then please hassle me or someone else until it gets done. :)
Which leaves with one more question though I've already asked it elsewhere: Why does the form in the window (field?) of special:upload differ from the form displayed above the window? Whichever we prefer, I think it would make sense to use this one form at both places to make a compelling case that we do want the uploader to provide that information.
Er, yeah, it might be nice to be consistent. :) I changed the default special:upload box so now it has all the fields. I also added it for "fromgov", but not "fromflickr" because the "Flinfo" tool which people should use gives output they can directly paste into the box, and not for "fromwikimedia" because the "commons helpers" tool does similar.
BTW, is there a reason for not realizing that suggestion about pointing out the two important things (author and source) on the page special:upload? For it seems that this might be getting the problem page now after the rearrangement... or don't you think?
Hmm...at the moment it does say in red, "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your file will be deleted without further notice. Thanks for your understanding." I guess it doesn't really emphasise them.
It is kind of a problem that we are trying to cram so many different functions into one page.
Anyway, the main text of Special:Upload is at MediaWiki:Uploadtext. Please suggest specific changes on that talk page, and they may be implemented. (Hint: if you think something should be re-written, rewriting it yourself is much more likely to make it happen rather than making a generic request that someone else do it.) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the red warning sentence as you suggested. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
| Image deletion warning | Category:Canton du Guilvinec 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
— Jeff G. 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Requesting deletion
[edit]Hi, please note that the speedy deletion tag is {{Speedy}}. {{Delete}} is for full deletion requests, and if they aren't completed properly your request might not be noticed for a long time. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Outch, thanks! That explains... :o) --Ibn Battuta 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Presidencia
[edit]Hola. El tema de la Presidencia argentina es de conflicto de larga data por acá. La primera autorización que hubo era muy precaria, y la permanencia de esas fotos quedó en jaque. Se consultó de nuevo y aparentemente todo quedó en la plantilla {{Cc-ar-presidency}} con una licencia CC-BY y un enlace a un supuesto permiso en OTRS.
Ayer consulté a alguien con acceso a OTRS sobre ese permiso y me dice que lo único significativo que tiene ese ticket es un mensaje que reza:
- "Estimado ......, Se trataría en este caso de una licencia de Creative Commons por atribución Atte, Andrea Caldararo Contenidos Secretaría de Medios".
O sea que no dice qué es lo que está como CC. A mí me parece bastante precario también eso como permiso, aunque en este caso la cosa va mejor porque Andrea Caldararo al menos es reconocida como alguien con poder de decisión en esos temas dentro de Presidencia.
En todo caso, de usarla, yo tendría sumo cuidado en incluir solamente las fotos que la sección de prensa publica. Que de hecho son la parte más jugosa de lo que hay en ese sitio. Y además, usar el sentido común lo más posible para no subir cosas que muy probablemente no están liberadas (porque pertenezcan a otros) aunque estén publicadas en el sitio de Presidencia. Barcex 12:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. Thank you. Siebrand 09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
re: request for deletion
[edit]Hi,
I very much doubt that Commons would honour any country's idea that scans introduce copyright. If you want this deleted please make a full deletion requestion. Best would be to discuss the general case of Israel's laws about this at Commons talk:Licensing. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why not go through the standard procedure as I suggested? If what you say is correct then there may be a large class of images affected by this. Therefore it makes sense to have an open discussion and be able to use that to refer to it later (precedent), rather than a single note on someone's talk page. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate category
[edit]Thanks for flagging up those duplicate categories. I had looked for an appropriate category, but had not found Category:Ship parts. I've deleted Category:Ship components. --Oldak Quill 21:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate decategorization
[edit]A trefoil knot is not necessarily artistic or decorative, so the category "Knots in art and decoration" should not automatically be removed from all trefoil knot images. Furthermore Image:Trefoil-Architectural-Equilateral-Triangle-interlaced.png is in "Category:Knots in art and decoration" not just because it's a triquetra, but because it has further interlacing... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- And also, Image:Trefoil-Architectural-Equilateral-Triangle-interlaced.png is not a triquetra! AnonMoos (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
What I forgot to say before is that some triquetras are not knots at all -- a triquetra can be depicted in interlaced or non-interlaced form, and the non-interlaced form (e.g. Image:Flag_of_Kashiwazaki,_Niigata.png, Image:Triquetra_on_book_cover.jpg etc.) is not knotted. I'm not sure what was wrong with the categories the way they were originally... AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Deprecated License
[edit]
It has been found that Image:Wheaton Female Seminary, MA 1844.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Filbot.--Filnik 04:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Quick release knot
[edit]Hi. I am trying to disambiguate the photos in Category:Quick release knot; before I started, there were at least two different loop knots in use. I know of still other knots known as "quick release knots". So I created Category:Quick release knots (plural) and left Category:Quick release knot for identification. Do you know a name for this knot? --Una Smith (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Mount Holyoke image
[edit]- Hi There, I don't check here very often so I just read your message. This is a view from the mountain "Mount Holyoke" which is the namesake for Mount Holyoke College and is part of the college's identity. Hope that clarifies it for you. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I just saw your message. I think your edits are just fine and make a lot of sense. Thanks for the great work! I work in Wikimedia infrequently (and prefer to have discussions on talk pages rather than email) so it's taken awhile to get back to you. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Nikbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Nikbot (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Nikbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Nikbot (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 03:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
[edit]Re-reading my own words the apology I offered you on the IMO DR was not as full and forthright as it could have been, a situation I wish to correct. The words and tone I used in the IMO DR were wrong and judgmental, for this I apologise.KTo288 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Description on flickr reviews
[edit]The description on the File:Tall ship Jeanie Johnston 4.jpg does have its description sourced which is the same source for the image. It would be a different story if the image's description was taken from elsewhere which is when it would need a source since the Flickr source for the image wouldn't source the description as it's a totally different description. I hope you can understand what I'm saying and haven't made it too complex. Bidgee (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've only had a quick read of your reply as I'm currently busy finishing my assignments which are due this week (two of which are due tomorrow) but I'll try and fully read your comment as soon as I can. By just reading quickly I think we may have our wires crossed. The source section for any file here (this is what I believe it is) is for the source description and the image however if the source has came from a different source then the image well that is when you need to source it. I believe also that the two Flickr upload bots copy the description (without the sourcing that you're talking about) along with the images. I'll shall read in greater detail by middle or later in the week. Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You made a Category:Brigantines and I think it is a good one to categorise by rig. But another user created (earlier) the mentioned category. So I asked for a discussion and made clear that I prefer the Brigantines. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Ibn Battuta, das war wohl Dein erster Versuch, ein COM:CFD-Verfahren zu eröffnen. Jedenfalls möchte ich Dich zukünftig darum bitten, den Instruktionen ganz oben zu folgen und
- auf der zu diskutierenden Kategorieseite ein {{subst:cfd}} zu hinterlassen,
- für jede zu diskutierende Kategorie eine neue Unterseite zu eröffnen (dafür gibt es da sogar bei Punkt II auf COM:CFD einen extra Button) und
- diese dann auf der übergeordneten Seite einzuhängen.
Ich habe das jetzt alles nachgeholt. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO discussion
[edit]I updated the figures and edited my arguments. Curious how many people will give their previous comments agian. Best regards. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured picture promotion
[edit] |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image Image:Low brace Youghiogheny River Ohiopyle, PA.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Low brace Youghiogheny River Ohiopyle, PA.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
--Karel (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
[edit]
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]][[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.BotMultichillT 15:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Elefantenzaehne drawing2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Paimpol port vers 1895.jpg was uncategorized on 23 February 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, nice one, usually I'm the one writing these messages... and I didn't even know there's a bot for it! :o) Anyways, dear bot, as far as I remember, that image is a derived image from another one that is appropriately categorized, and both images interlink... so I guess it's not quite as "unfindable" as you may fear. Whatever. It's now categorized like the other image, whatever that's worth. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:Kanten_von_vorn_Pueblo_CO.jpg
[edit]
|
| This media may be deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Kanten_von_vorn_Pueblo_CO.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.
If you created the content yourself, enter If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |
The link on the pages points to a differend picture. MGA73 (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 |
File:Stad Amsterdam achtern, Valencia 2007.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
It is licensed NC-ND on Flickr. --Túrelio (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
|
File:Q2ARALibertad.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. |
— Jeff G. ツ 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
|
|
File:Lyme_Park_court_yard.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. |
Kelly (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I apologise for my mistake. I ordered a rename now (after I read your message yesterday) and it looks like the title has been corrected. I'm sorry but I don't speak Cyrillic or Russian. It was a bit confusing to see it spelled 'Yuniy' in another picture but I suppose I was just confused. It was an honest mistake on my part. Best wishes from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Only Administrators and trusted users can order an image file to be renamed. If an ordinary user tries to do this, a bot (or someone else) won't approve the move...due to the problem of vandalism of image file names. Some people also agree to allow their files on flickr or panoramio/picasa, etc to be used here as long as they are credited by name in the image title itself. So, if you need a rename to be done just contact an Admin that you personally know. I don't know you very well though I have seen some of your work but other Admins here (or trusted users) must know you more often. This is how the process works.
PS: This is one image file that I uploaded years ago with the copyright owner's permission...on condition that he was named as the photographer in the image title itself. This is quite reasonable since he did take the picture...and it is a very good photo:
.jpg){kind=link}
All the best and good luck from Vancouver, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Uncited changes to File:Rockall Sketch from HMS Endymion 1810.jpg
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Category:Paintings_in_the_Gemäldegalerie_Dresden has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
A. Wagner (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
|
|
Academical village has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
|
|
Ship types with two masts has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
--Badzil (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
|
File:Oxnard, Ormond Beach surfing 1975.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
|
|
File:Hsu Wei Lun.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. |
Marcus Hsu talk 03:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
|
|
File:Alderman7.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. |
GrapedApe (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
|
|
Gaff rigged ketch has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
BMacZero (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
|
|
Robson has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Zaccarias (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:John Paul Jones Arena.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. |
Guanaco (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:Scott Stadium.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. |
Guanaco (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:Virginia Cavaliers Fans.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. |
Guanaco (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
|
|
File:Virginia Pep Band 2002.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. |
B (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2018 is open!
[edit]
Dear Ibn Battuta,
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in R1 of the 2018 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2018) 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.
In the final (and current) round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2018.
Round 2 will end 17 March 2019, 23:59:59.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 18:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)