User talk:KTo288/archive May 2013-September 2017

File:Manif contre Acta-capture d'écran 015.png

Hi. In OTRS system we have a restoration request about File:Manif contre Acta-capture d'écran 015.png

I saw the deletion log, and I ask yourself, how to act?

• The email is dated 2013/04/30.
• Ticket: otrs:2013042910004213

Greetings, Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 23:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the speedy request was made by the uploader himself with the statement that he would reupload it with the correct permissions.--KTo288 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Ticket replied and closed. Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 21:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome,feel free to contact me if my memory was faulty, or if I misread the uploaders reequest.--KTo288 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidance

Hi, you recently commented at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fiesto bathtub that the files should have been tagged for speedy. Is there a way to do that using VisualFileChange.js? TIA. Rahul Bott (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't use scripts or gadgets, so I'm the wrong person to ask for guidance on this, I normally do everything longhand by adding {{speedy|reason for deletion}} to the file, see Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.--KTo288 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, thanks anyways! Probably some admins visiting your talk page may be of help! Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Been here to long all these new fangled gadgets and aids to editing have passed me by.--KTo288 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Rahul Bott (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Alfredo Conde‎

Why you move images back to category:Alfredo Conde‎ in AELG‎?--Juandev (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All the categories in Category:Images from AELG are of the same form. As I see it the ...in AELG, provides in addition to being a category of writers from Galicia, is a category of the source of the images, just as we have images from NASA or the Bundesarchive etc. adding such a source category to Category:Alfredo Conde is not appropriate as not al the images in that category are from that source. Both categories have been kept and nested.--KTo288 (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

But do you see there any category named XY in Bundesarchive? I dont. I see for example Category:Holger Börner (not Category:Holger Börner in Bundesarchive or Category:Holger Börner in German Federal Archive). It seems to me logic to group pictures which depicts Holger Börner to the basic Category:Holger Börner. As far as I never seen at Commons categorization of people by their membership in associations. Thus I thing pictures of Alfredo Conde‎ (or any other AELG writer) should be in basic category Alfredo Conde. And if you see more categories like XY in AELG, they are all wrong and should be removed than. As far as I know, we categorise images according the visible layer. So could be Barack Obama in San Francico, could be even Barack Obama in Harvard (in the case it was taken at Harvard), but cant be group of pictures Barack Obama in Asociation of the American Presidents, BO in Domocratical Party etc. If someone needs such categories, I would call them technical and thus they should be hidden.--Juandev (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, the categories were created by a bot which uploaded the images from the AELG website, so that in addition to the individual authors belonging to the organisation, the organisation is the source of the images. Its the way the bot named the images using "in" which I guess is the reason why this is not apparent. For Barack Obama we have for example Category:Images from FEMA, category Presidential Visit, FEMA being the source of the images. For some categories categorisation by source is accepted in others the source category is used as a holding pen until the files/subcategories are better sorted, in this case because AELG is both the source of the images and an organisation that all the subjects belong to, I think its a useful intersection to keep.--KTo288 (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But in this case FEMA is being place on images, so it does have a sense. On the other side AELG is not a place - it is a virtual body.--Juandev (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Although they must have offices I would consider FEMA as more of an organisation than as a physical place, it'll take some time but perhaps the best thing would be renaming the categories to example Category:Photographs of Alfredo Conde from AELG.--KTo288 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Within the time, I called for deletion of that and those category, so lets allow others to come up with their point of view.--Juandev (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This would have been better served being discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion, but no matter.--KTo288 (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That Boutique-y Whisky Company Copyright

Hi KTo288,

Please see OTRS ticket number 2013041210006207 for evidence that copyright has been granted on these images.

Many thanks, Tom McGuinness

Checked at OTRS, and another admin was enquiring about these, I wanted to wait until there was a reply there. However in the interim and these have been restored by another admin. My apologies for what an implicit accusation of making copyright violations.--KTo288 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Importance Skill Chance.JPG

Since en:Critical repetition frequency has been deleted, I have reopened the delete request for this file:File:Importance Skill Chance.JPG

For more information see there.

Thank you for your help

Kind regards

Roland Roland Scheicher (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry we're so used to the bureaucracy that has grownup with our projects, that we forget how daunting it may seem. I hope your experience both here and at en:WP hasn't put you off contributing.--KTo288 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry; I won't give up so quickly.

However, most of my contributions are made in the German wikipedia (that's me: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Roland_Scheicher)

Thank you for your help and the best wishes from Vienna

Roland Scheicher (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing other's comments

It's a particularly underhand tactic to edit another editor's comments in a debate in a way that makes them look like an idiot, then to criticize precisely that invented action! I'm really not happy about this and it's not something that is ever accepted across WM. Why?! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, not exactly sure how it happened, but it was not an attempt to make you look like an idiot.--KTo288 (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting all those redundant categories (e.g. Category:Mountains of Dundee et al). All the best! Laerol (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, the comments were fun to read,--KTo288 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories by day

Please do not delete any more of the categories nominated for speedy deletion by RolandZH, there has not been any kind of consensus those category are useless. --Abderitestatos (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The established consensus is empty categories can be speedily deleted whoever nominates them, and these cats shoud be of significant news worthy events, e.g. demonstrations, disasters, major sports events etc rather then some haphazard photograph that just happens to have occured on such and such a date. As a courtesy to you I'll hold of deleting until say this time tomorrow, and only delete if you cannot populate these categories with non random files.--KTo288 (talk)

Review of Commons' Scope is now OPEN

Hi. Earlier this year you contributed to a discussion of Commons' scope at Commons:Requests for comment/scope. I am hoping we can build on the very interesting discussion that happened there, and I would like to invite you to add your further thoughts to a broader review now underway at Review of Commons' Scope. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hoff_crab

Category:Hoff_crab 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!

Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Wave Knight 1.jpg

File:Wave Knight 1.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!

Takabeg (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Music_of_1905

Music of 1905 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) 20:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:CaptureofFtRiviere.jpg

File:CaptureofFtRiviere.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!

Underlying lk (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Guidance

All fixed- thanks.

No problem.--KTo288 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you for the identification of File:Aérodrome de Saint-Cyr-l'École en 2013 - 11.jpg. --Lionel Allorge (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure.--KTo288 (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Airmen

Hi, Kto288, you recently created a new Category:Airmen, but it seems to at least overlap with Category:Air force people, Category:Aircrew members and Category:Aviators. I'm just an aircraft recognition buff, but the whole category tree between Aviation and People seems to be a bit of a mess - perhaps you can help organise it better with unambiguous cat names, definitions, cat redirects etc. Another issue I'm not clear about is how named people can be differentiated from the unnamed people - categories and images for named individuals seem to be randomly scattered all over the place. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've discovered Commons is a work in progress, if you let trying to getting categories absolutely correct, you'll let it drive you crazy, the only way I've avoided burnout or being booted off Commons is not to to take anything to strongly and expect things to be difinitively fixed. Okay back to yor question, as one aviation buff to another, although pilots and aircrew members get to fly it is because of a great number of people on the ground, and especially in airforces, the number who get to fly are only a small number of the total, you have artificers and armourers, firemen and engineers etc. The reason I created the file is because of File:Pakistani F2000.JPEG, its a file of Pakistan Air Force airmen on exercise, which was categorised in the category soldiers, as you can see they are not aircrew. A similar situation would exist for RAF Regiment aircraftmen and USAF force protection airmen.--KTo288 (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:mental restrictions

Yes, i see how that makes sense, and i created the CFD myself, and have noticed that almost all my CFD's are just grinding along with no comments, or not enough to justify a decision. i know not to depopulate a category just prior to CFD. if enough time goes by w/o any comments, i may review what in this category and whether they belong in it. thanks for the protocol lesson.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries.--KTo288 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Actual_barnstars

Actual barnstars 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!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

??

Any chance of you re-joining us over at Wikinews......we could use your presence there! --Buddpaul (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays!
	G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft_cockpits

Aircraft cockpits 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!

ŠJů (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Galleries in category space

Sorry but galleries in category space is against the conventions here, its okay to create gallery pages for navigation though and this is what I'm doing to Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories which will be suppressed when finished.--KTo288 (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand what you want to do. On some categories with many images, I thought that it was interesting to create gallery in order than contributors upload their images in subcategories and not in a crowded category. What is the problem ? --Tangopaso (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/10/Category:Actual barnstars and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/10/Category:Barnstars

Has this actually been done? The cfd tags are still on the categories and nothing much seems to have been moved. --rimshot^talk 18:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Its still a work in progress, manage to rehome over half of the individual files, running out off steam with the remainder.--KTo288 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The closing comments on the CFDs are not quite clear. What do you intend to move where? A simple category move can be requested at User:CommonsDelinker/commands or its talk page for non-admins. This shouldn't need to take weeks. --rimshot^talk 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Using a category move will just be moving one overcroded namespace to another namespace, rather than having all of them in one category, instead they are being diffused into subcategories by design, use and status etc. as subcategories of Category:Wikimedia barnstars.--KTo288 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking me for a duration of 3 days !

Hello! I want to thank you for blocking user Musichistory2009 for a duration of three days. I realize that administrators of your kind aren't moving forward things (in general) and this project (in particular). I had a lot of good contributions at commons during the last couple of years, I've done a lot of corrections at this project. These days I'm working (or at least I was working) at correcting, standardization and arrangement of cities of Romania categories. I've put the correct city name for the cities I had done, and I've eliminated category redirects, replacing the links to the redirects with the right ones. It was no problem at all with all the administrators, until I've met you! You've banned me for a minor thing, an unused category redirect (with the wrong name). Suddenly, I've realized that Comănești is very important, since it's the only town that needs this kind of category redirect. It's your opinion, and you have to be right. Probably you're always right, because you're an administrator. Congratulations! All of my work had no value for you and, so, you took a hasty and exaggerated decision: to block me. I just want to tell you that you can block me forever, if it makes you feel better. I really want you to feel better and very strong. So, make whatever you need to feel better. Thank you again for stopping me from working and next time try to be an administrator in North Korea.

In addition to other concerns I have with your editing, the block was for edit warring, not for that category per-se. You were entitled to nominate that cat for regular DR, but to add the speedy again, and when another editor removed the speedy to nominate for speedy again. Blocks work on an escalating basis, you have already earned a 1 day block from another admin for edit warring, the next block for edit warring will be for 7 days, and so on. --KTo288 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to email sent to me.

If you felt that I was mistaken you should have opened a DR; or better still put it up for a Cfd becausea s you said it does not affect just one category. As i've said the block is not for disagreeing with me but for edit warring, and not just on this one category.

Different admins see things differently but I work on the principle that Commons is a multilingual project, but with the main category tree in English, redirects should therefore exist for non English speakers to find the pages and categories they are looking for using the search box. I must note that diacritics are not used in English so actually the correct name for the categories would be without diacritics; with the ones you consider to be correct the actual redirects. This is I believe the state of affairs before your so called corrections and the status quo. --KTo288 (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Removing descriptions in other languages

Can I ask the reasoning for this edit? and why you think its justified--KTo288 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can ask, especially since you are watching every step I make. I've removed the long description text because commons is a files repository and not a wikipedia article with much information. But, more important, to standardize the categories of Romanian cities (320 cities, so 320 categories). I've done so far the cities of 26 counties and I have 15 more. I'd like to finish them, of course, if you don't block me again. The cities I've made have the descriptions in English in Romanian (which are the most relevant). The great majority of them had no description at all (besides this, some of the cities didn't have all the categories needed). There were two or three city categories with long and useless descriptions in a lot of languages (for that, there are the wikipedia articles). I've sacrified the long descriptions for those 2-3 cities to have all the cities categories in the same shape.

About the redirects, you've said: redirects should therefore exist for non English speakers to find the pages and categories they are looking for using the search box. I must note that diacritics are not used in English so actually the correct name for the categories would be without diacritics. In the near future (if you don't block me, of course) I'll create a redirect category page for each city that has Romanian characters (with diacritics). So, Comănești (Comanesti) won't be the only one. Musichistory, an unblocked user (for the moment).

The description was not long, just lots of short descriptions in multiple languages. Why do you think its right to sacrifice other languages in favour of Romanian and English. Commoms is a mulitlingual project, every language is important to someone. Why do you think all the categories have to look exactly the same with just Romanian and English. If you think it unwieldy the descriptions can be collapsed using a template so that only the language the user is interested in is displayed.--KTo288 (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I know that the "short" descriptions can be collapsed using a template. It's no news for me. But I think that Romanian and English should have priority for two obvious reasons: Romanian - because there are Romanian cities, and English - because it's the universal language, the most relevant language at Wikimedia commons. It's quite easy what you are doing. You see a singular category, an exception (like I've said, there were only 2 or 3 categories with descriptions in many languages) and you try to find mistakes in my work. Anyone can do that. If you really care about what I'm doing, why don't you add descriptions in 1000 languages for all the 320 cities of Romania? Instead, you try to oppose me and ask me for a lot of explanations and arguments. I can give you that, but it slows me down. For the category names you've blocked me because "Comăneşti" has Romanian characters, and the category at commons must have only English names and characters. For the descriptions, English isn't so important anymore, and the city of Gheorgheni shoud have descriptions in all the languages known to human kind (and probably some unknown). Musichistory, an unblocked user (for the moment).

Yes I do want to slow you down, to use a bit more thought before yu edit, to think about how your edits will look to others, the confidence that you are always right and everybody else is wrong is worrying in a collaborative project as is the casual disregard of their work.

Its exactly because categories are in English the backbone of the category tree is in English that redirects and descriptions in other languages are important for users with other languages.

I think you have made a mistake with Gheorgheni, would you please undo the edit that removed the other decriptions, and of the other categories that you removed the descriptions from.--KTo288 (talk)

Yes I do want to slow you down shows me exactly what I've already knew. Also, you tell me to use a bit more thought before I edit. I can tell you exactely the same thing about your action, when you blocked me. You could tell before blocking me that what I've done was wrong, you could try to explain, you could corect me, you could warn me, but instead you have suddenly just blocked me. That's why I told you that you were acting in the North Korean style in that situation. I'm not telling that you're not a good administrator, but in my case you've acted brutally and, in my opinion, that isn't what a good administrator is supposed to do. An administrator is NOT a dictator, even though he has the weapon, the gun (the possibility of blocking someone). I don't thing that I'm always right and everybody else is wrong. This is something you've thought when you blocked me, because if you weren't so sure that you were right, you would debate, explain, correct, and not act brutally. The act ifself shows me how sure you wore of your rightness.
The supposed disregard of other people work at wikimedia commons is false. All I'm trying to do is to correct errors and emprove this project. I've made a lot of corrections of categories what were categorized completely wrong, I've corrected serious mistakes, I've seen (for example) subcategories of a town in Serbia that were put under the categories of a town in Romania, and so on. Why don't you try to correct this obvious mistakes? I'm assuring you that if I had deleted some descriptions in some languages I've done it for Wikimedia Commons to look better. So, before I append the descriptions in another 1000 languages for Gheorgheni, I ask you: isn't it a shame to spoil the uniformization and the standard for all the Romanian cities with this singular case?
I feel that you take this matter a little too personally and a good and useful administrator shouldn't have personal disputes here. Why are you the only administrator that has an obvious problem with my work? I'm sorry but I don't want any kind of personal disputes here. It's obvious that you are not objective in my case, probably because I was kind of ironic with you. But you must understand me: you have your weapon (the blocking), I have to have mine (the irony).
Respectfully, Musichistory, a user that hopes that you are clever enough not to pull the trigger again.

The last line of my 7th March post was "Please take this as a warning not to edit war." and two posts before this was your 1 day block on the 17th February for edit warring. In case you haven't noticed we take a dim view on edit warring, maybe I was being too polite and did not give you a stern enough warning at the time. Actually I don't mind your hyperbole (your humour is not irony-irony in this case would be you calling me a wise, fair and wonderful admin who can do no wrong and that you deserved your slapdown, this would be ironic because it is the opposite of what you believe), it is far better than ignoring messages on your page, not addressing concerns raised and then being confused and angry when someone "pulls the trigger". Believe me I have better things to do then constantly look over your shoulder, but I will "pull the trigger", after fair warning, as many times as needed if it is deserved. I'm actually not going to have internet access over the next month, so will be unable to look over your shoulder even if I wanted to, so you'll have free rein, just be sure its not rope for your own neck.--KTo288 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Out of patrol and request for a tool

As you probably know, not a long time ago I've got the right not the be patrolled anymore, because I'm an experienced user that knows what he is doing. You are still patroling me, but that's alright, because I don't intend to do damages and wrong edits at commons. I don't mind if you patrol me, I'm just honored and flattered that you find such an interest in my work.
If you really want to help me, you could suggest where I can find a tool that extracts from Wikidata the list of article titles of a city in all the languages available. There was a tool of this kind which I had used, but it's not available anymore. I need the list ([[de:Article_name]] [[en:Article_name]] [[ro:Article_name]] ....) to put it at the end of each wikimedia commons city of Romania category. Thank you in advance, Musichistory.

Sorry I can't help you with finding a tool, but I can suggest a workaround. Go to one of the articles at a wikipedia e.g. English or Roumanian. In the sidebar under "languages" is a button called "edit links" clicking on this should take you to the Wikidata page for the topic.--KTo288 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The same button also appears in Commons, but what comes up is a popup to which you can add a link to an article at a wikipedia. Both these require the bot to do the actual linking which it may refuse to do.--KTo288 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Gheorgheni - the most important city at Wikimedia Commons

Ok, I've seen you rolled back the category of Gheorgheni. It's no problem. I will only put the corect categories if you don't mind, and edit only the descriptions in English and Romanian (after the standardization), leaving all the others descriptions. I think this is fair enough.

When you come back from your one month vacation, you won't find me here anymore, because I intend to leave commons in one week (aproximately). It's not your fault that I'm leaving, but I guess a have better fish to fry.

Musichistory2009, a user sitting in front of your "trigger".

We all need to break from things every now and then, it helps put things in perspective, thank you for your past enthusiasm editing and categorisation, and hope that sometime in the future that it will return. No irony of any sort intended.--KTo288 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Flickr Tony Duell RSCN0878 (9268329126).jpg

I have now removed the finger mark from File:Clapton bus garage, 19 September 2012.jpg. Hopefully now it should be more obvious why I chose to retain that one over this image. My only use for it was to show the widest possible scene and to create the close crop derivative. I have absolutely no use for this intermediate size - had I noticed it was the same photo I would never have even uploaded it. Hence why I did not bother to name it, describe it, categorise it, or link it with the others via other_version, instead choosing to speedy delete it. Hopefully that better informs you about what is the common sense thing to do now with File:Flickr Tony Duell RSCN0878 (9268329126).jpg, for the benefit of both users and editors. Ultra7 (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:UEFA Champions League Trophy.JPG

Yours sincerely, LGA _talk^edits 04:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

关于File:中华人民共和国机动车驾驶证简式样本（正页）.png及File:中华人民共和国机动车驾驶证简式样本（副页）.png的反馈

• 鉴于您在自己的页面上标示出您的中文水平很高，在此，我将使用中文与您交流。谢谢！

首先，非常感谢您对维基百科共享资源的管理！

最近，阁下删除了我所上传的两张图片（如题目所述），我需要在此作出说明：

1.这两张图片及其之前被删除的版本是我自行排版制作的，是我自己的作品，它的原始来源为中华人民共和国境内的证件，而中华人民共和国境内的证件属于公有领域的著作品（如下图），我的作品并未侵犯任何版权要求（条款）；{{PD-PRC-exempt}}

2.我按照并且严格遵守维基百科的图片上传方针，在图片的来源上注明了Flickr，并且原始图片在Flickr（https://www.flickr.com/photos/100953993@N06/14673650170/

）注明了版权许可表示，请予以明察；

3.请阁下认真考量我的申诉请求，并体谅我的图片制作热情与辛苦，认真做出客观、真实的结论。

4.希望得到阁下的认可与回复，并及时恢复这两张照片的原始文本。谢谢！

TVBS588 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

中文：::TVBS588你好

我對比Flickr和元本上傳Commons的文件許可時，Flickr的許可是有「只許非商業用途的」此限制不符合Commons的許可協議，我們只好刪除它。你後來上傳的文件同之前剛剛刪除的是同一的，以你只有說是自己的作品，没有來源，許可等等的證明。很抱歉，我們實在見了太多类似這的事情，是一体不明白Commons的使命，它的文化和許可協議的上傳者的做法，因此我再刪除這文件。其實我們是有渠道放復錯誤刪除的文件，我留在你用戶討論頁的通知模板裡有轉到Commons:Undeletion requests的鏈接。

Commons對版權十分重視，文件每個要有清楚的來源，明確和符合Commons的許可。很多時上傳者會利用Flickr清洗侵犯版權的文件(Commons:License laundering)，希望你沒見怪，就算User:TVBS588和Flickr的TVBS Liu真是同一人，我們也不能進信你的說話，很抱歉你一片紅的上傳記錄更令我難相信你對版權同Commons的認識。

此時請你利用Commons:Undeletion requests來要求這文件的放復，可能你要用Commons:OTRS來證明你是這文件的創建者。--KTo288 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

English:  ::Hi TVBS588, When I compared the Flickr files and Commons uploads, those at Flickr had the restriction of "no commercial use" which is not compatible with Commons Licensing, we therefore had to delete them. Subsequently you uploaded files which were identical to those just deleted, claiming that it was your own work but without evidence of source, permissions e.t.c. Sorry, but we see too much of this kind of thing by uploaders who do not understand Common's mission, culture and licensing policy, I therefore again deleted these files. Actually we do have a channel to restore wrongly deleted files, within the message template that I left on your talk page is a link which would have gone to Commons:Undeletion requests. Commons takes copyrights very seriously, files must be clear with regards to source, and have a proper and Commons compatible license. Often uploaders will use Flickr for the license laundering of copyvios, please don't be offended but even if User:TVBS588and Flickr's TVBS Liu are one and the same person, we can not now just take you on your word completely, sorry but the page of red in your upload history makes it difficult for me to trust your understanding of copyright and of Commons. At this time please use Commons:Undeletion Requests to ask for the restoration of these files, you may need to use Commons:OTRS to prove that you are these files creator.--KTo288 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

copy edited and edited to more closely agree with Chinese.--KTo288 (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Daniel Radcliffe 2009.jpg

Hi KTo288. Please be more careful not to introduce syntax errors. Thank you. --Leyo 08:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, looked at it and I think I've now fixed it, error caused by not paying attention when cutting and pasting during the merging of a duplicate, will be more careful in future.--KTo288 (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Message from User:Editoralistic

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE PAGE I CREATED... IT AIMS TO CREATE INFO ABOUT THE SCHOOL

If its out of scope, does not abide with gallery page criteria etc, it gets deleted simple as that.--KTo288 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Islands of Tokyo

Hello. Meet Islands of Tokyo? See: Category:Islands of Tokyo. --Allforrous 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--KTo288 (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Seoul Montage 2013

Hello. I am the creator of the montage on the Seoul page of the English Wikipedia File:Seoul montage 2013.jpg. I just found out that there seems to be a problem with it concerning copyright. Am I understanding correctly that the image of N Seoul Tower in the center is somehow in violation of copyright, even though I took the image myself? I am willing to replace that image with something else if necessary. But I am unclear as to how/why it infringes upon copyright. Any explanation would be appreciated.

I can see that you are a very serious editor and administrator. And I thank you for all the work you do on Commons. I just don't understand the problem. I currently live in Seoul, and have taken hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures here. I'm happy to replace the image if necessary. But I'd hate to replace the image with another problematic image. Thank you for your good work! Mark Froelich (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is not your copyright of the photograph, its the copyright for the structure, which belongs to the architect. It's not just this file that it affects, a fuller discussion of the issues at play is at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#No_Commercial_reuse_FoP_in_South_Korea.2C_files_of_modern_buildings. Basically pictures of modern buildings in South Korea, will probably have to be considered off limits with regards to Commons. So it would be great if you can replace the N Seoul Tower image with something else, but that something else cannot be a modern building, we haven't really been able to come up with a clear year to apply to such cases, but as a, better to be safe then sorry, guideline any building for which the architect is still alive, or who hasn't been dead for at least 70 years, is probably off limits. I'm afraid, that as far as Commons is concerned, architecturally South Korea is going to look like a Joseon theme park.---KTo288 (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response. I will take a look at the link you have provided. And I will start considering what vertical symbol I could put in the tower's place. Maybe I have a self-taken, centered image of the Gyeongcheonsa Pagoda on my computer somewhere. It's tall. And it's actually pre-Joseon! I will let you know what I come up with. Thanks again. Mark Froelich (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Then again, that pagoda isn't originally from Seoul. (Though it's here now.) So maybe that wouldn't be great. I'll rummage.Mark Froelich (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the time and effort to offer to fix this for us, I forgot to mention this earlier, but the reason I said on Commons:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#New_photo_montages_of_Seoul_needed that I was wary of in your montage, and that maybe it would be preferable to start that one from scratch, is because off all the pictures of statues, I'm less sure of it then I am of the N Seoul Tower, in general modern public artworks will fall foul of FoP in South Korea, however I don't know the year these works were created, and didn't think to add it at the DR. I'm really sorry that I didn't mention this earlier,-KTo288 (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Flag and Emblem of Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee

Flag of Chinese Taipei for Olympic games.svg and Emblem of Chinese Taipei for Olympic games.svg were created incorrectly at beginning. Jitcji redrew and uploaded them according to the information on the official website of Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, but Fry1989, unable to read Chinese, reverted them to the incorrect version. I translated the information on the official website into English on the talk page and renewed these two images. However, Fry1989 reverted them again. To avoid the re-upload warring, could you help to recover the correct images and stop Fry1989 insist on the incorrect version? Thanks a lot!--Akira123 (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for late answer, distracted by other things, Fry1989 is absolutely right, we do not overwrite files with new and better versions, what we do is make a new upload with the new file under a different name, its for users at the sister projects to then choose which they prefer, we do not use changes on Commons as a means to force unwanted edits at those sister projects. I'll look into this tomorrow, and if something still needs to be done I'll create the new file for you.--KTo288 (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:SDG1

Could you restore this? It is something similiar to {{Noncommercial}} and the equivalent of an en.WP db-[…] template. It had a warning and the Other speedy deletions category should have been in includeonly tags … Forgot the {{{category|[…]}}}. Embarassing :) .    FDMS  4    22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. added a tl to the markup so that it will not show up in speedy delete again, when you have finsihed working on it remove the tl.--KTo288 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Stem-cross-section2.jpg

Hello KTo288/archive May 2013-September 2017.

About this. There are a lot of derivative works from this in: Category:Plant stem diagrams.

Regards. --. HombreDHojalata.^talk 08:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thamks for the heads up.--KTo288 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Commercial copyrights required on Commons

Hello KTo288

Thanks for your work. I came across two cases where copyrights of original source would be granted for non commercial use (McCord museum and Canadian Mint) but Wiki Commons would not accept due to the lack of a Commercial license needed in addition to the other licences. Is this a policy that could de changed by wiki commons?

I'm afraid not sorry, it would be overturning one of the core principles here that all files here must be able to be used for any purpose including commercial.--KTo288 (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Identifiable persons question

Hi, KT! I am contacting you for two reasons. First, to thank you for your decision to support my nomination of the file Anencephaly.jpg for deletion. And second, I wanted to know some of your thoughts on the nature of identifiable persons (which you state as one of the justifiable reasons for deleting the image). Do you know or are you familiar with the most current Commons policy on this matter when the subject is one who, though human, lacks any kind of meaningful "brain"? (and who therefore might not seem to qualify as a protected identifiable person). What if the image were one of just an amputated limb? Or an ear or a nose? And if the person were now clearly deceased (as is almost certainly the case here)— well, what then? (I realize these are all slippery philosophical slopes, and am only curious as to your thoughts on them, nothing more, as I find them somewhat intractable myself). Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully these cases are very rare, from date time context this baby would have been identifiable to its parents and those around it. We all have different ways of seeing this, so I can't speak on behalf of Commons, but to me this baby was human, even though its life was short, and deserved all the respect and dignity we would give to any other fellow human being. Identifiable people wise the policy is at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, a lot of this depends on which country you are in, but for example in the UK, if I was to take a picture of someone in the street who had just lost a limb in an accident, I would be entitled to do so, though it would be reprehensible, as there would be no expectation of privacy, if I was to do the same in a hospital or their residence I would be in trouble. I would say rather than rely on hard and fast rules, with deletion/keeping such files is to use common sense and do the right thing with regards common decency.--KTo288 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Vienna categories

Hi there, thank you for your message, but I am not the one who started unilaterally moving them. I created a number of them myself and have restored the original names. The party that needs to be addressed is the other one. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Before we carry on let me recap the situation as I understand it; feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. My understanding of the situation is that you were the original creator of many of these categories. Since their creation however, it was decided to rename the categories, with the ones you created being deleted as misnamed/bad name. You subsequently decided that there was nothing wrong with your original names, recreated those categories and moved the files back. Which led to the reversion of your moves and the categories you re-created being nominated for speedy.--KTo288 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I created many of these categories. They have been moved unilaterally to a format that is unknown to me. I noticed it recently, therefore I have moved some of them back, not all since the scope of the moving has been quite large. Since I don't want this to degenerate, I have created a discussion page here which might be of interest to you. [1]. Gryffindor (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so much concerned with how the files are categorised, so much as with the edit skirmish that occurred. The Categories for discussion route is the right way to go about resolving this.--KTo288 (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Restoration hanger at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center 5.jpg

Thanks for identifying the aircraft in this photo! Mike Peel (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No thank you for uploading it, I can't begin to describe how thrilled I was to see it, it is a really, really really rare aircraft.--KTo288 (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you once more, this time for identifying File:Restoration hanger at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center 6.jpg! :-) Mike Peel (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Again the pleasure is mine.--KTo288 (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:F25 Bangabandhu (ship, 2001)

You made a change that interests me. I used DEFAULTSORT to position. Why did you change? Can I learn? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stunteltje, I wanted to separate Bangabandhu from the Korean ships, or to put in other words I wanted to keep the Korean ships grouped together. There's a lot about the Bangabandhu, that makes me consider it to be a singleton subclass of the Ulsans rather than an Ulsan class proper. If there were more of them I would consider creating a sub category for them; something which may still be appropriate. Regards.--KTo288 (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Upside_down_cakes

Upside down cakes 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!

67.239.165.4 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The upside down cake recipes can be found at wikibooks I presume that 50g in this case would mean 50 grams, or 10 tea spoons, but best see the recipe book.-KTo288 (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called KTo288. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name KTo288~commonswiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

21:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C. 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!

--Evrik (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Help (translation)

Hello KTo288 do you speak cantonese? Smitersleon (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply (too many real life things to deal with) Yes I do, as the user name no doubt suggests.--KTo288 (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

deletion

Hi, can you please delete this (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dorota_Rabczewska_Doda_SOPOT_HIT_2009_129_MJ_640x0_rozmiar-niestandardowy.jpg) photo as it is taken from the internet and doesn't meet Wikimedia criterias. Thanks in advance. ArturSik (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese

Hello KTo288, can you help me translate this article from english to chinese mandarin please? Lupenquarto (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

tut tut, out of scope for commons you know. I do ore Chinese to English translation than vice versa, will look into it.--KTo288 (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sunbeam

Hi, I've noted you are an admin. What is the reason for reverting? Eddaido (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Because its the name ueed for the vehicle's name on three wikis, see en:Sunbeam 1000 hp et al, would you be prepared to be bold and move those articles to your preferred name, and substitute that name throughout the article, if not then the status quo is better.--KTo288 (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File: 50p Public Libraries Act

Hello, you requested the speedy deletion of the page File:50p Public Libraries Act.JPG for copyright violation as Commons does not accept fair use content. Is it not possible to upload to Commons even if the copyright owner (the Royal Mint of behalf of the Crown) has expressed permission for re-use? (See Guidelines on the use of United Kingdom coin designs) Thanks in advance for your explanation; looking forward to learning more on the subject. Audesome (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons only hosts free files, of those freedoms is the freedom by reusers to use in anyway desired, including commercially if desired e.g. to print it on t shirt . and to remix in anyway desired, including in bad taste. To quote Commons:Licensing "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose."--21:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarifications on remove of content and photos

Dear KTo288,

I have previously updated content and photos about Wing Lung Bank in Nov 2015 but found that those content and photos were removed recently in February. I am not very sure about the reason so would like to seek for your clarification.

It is stated that content was reverted to an older version in order to remove overly promotional corporate bump. However, we were just adding / polishing content base on the older English version and synchronize our Chinese versions base on the English amended version. Could you please explain why the content of the older version is fine to be posted but not our amended version?

For the photos, are they fine if watermarks are not added?

I look forward to receiving your reply so that we will know our next step. Thank you very much for your attention of this message.

Regards, CCD_WLB

There are two issues here one a Commons one and one Wikipedia one. Since this is Commons I'll adress the Commoms one first. Its not the watermarks on the images per se, but the fact that these images appear to have been produced internally by Wing Lung Bank or was created as work for hire for their own promotional use, and therefore Wing Lung are the copyright holders of this material. In order for Commons to accept these images we must receieve confirmation from Wing Lung itself that they are happy to donate these images to us, and that they understand that in doing so anyone will be able to use these images in anyway they desire. If this is the case then please see Commons:OTRS.

The revert of the Wing Lung Bank article is more properly dealt with at Wikipedia,but since we are here we might as well adress it here too. Basically your additions were corporate puffery, replacing objective facts with words designed to give the company a positive light. Please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion, and since from your username you appear to be someone aasociated with the company Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Regards--KTo288 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear KTo288,

Thanks for the reply. If I have obtained approval from Wing Lung Bank, anyway that I can send confirmation to Wiki so that the images can be used? Besides, you mentioned that the additions on content were corporate puffery, could you please point out specifically which part do you mean? From our point of view, the contents are facts of the history and business of the Bank, we have just updated it base on the previous version of content. Also, do you have any email address so that we can discuss the issue through email? Thank you very much!

Regards, CCD_WLB

Deletion

Hi, may I ask you to delete this picture. There is no doubt it has been taken from the Internet and it isn't on free licence. The person who uploaded the photo has even stated the source (http://lula.pl/lula/56,111770,16652041,margaret,,1.html) which clearly shows that it cannot be used on Wikipedia. Someone has nominated it to be deleted but I think there is nothing to discuss, it's clear that it shouldn't be here and should be deleted immediately. ArturSik (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted, in the event of an obvious copyvio the speedy deletion (Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion) would have been appropriate.--KTo288 (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Malczewski

Re: [2]

Yup, this one is indeed brighter and has weird colours added by editors. In good faith I believe, but it doesn't make it right. The other was created by the museum itself, with proper lighting and equipment, with colorimetry set so that the scanned image was as true to the original as possible. And the image was shared as part of our Wikipedian-in-Residence program there. So, while I'm all for letting editors chose, in this case there is one right version and one wrong version. Could you please reconsider? Halibutt (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Same case here. Halibutt (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

And here. Halibutt (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

And here... Halibutt (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Halibutt: The way computers reproduce colours will mean that every file of an artwork is a compromise, and different people will have a different idea as to what is a true reproduction, and even in the flesh subjective experience of colour will depend on lighting, most institutions will use a softer off white lighting in gallerys to protect their artworks, but will use a brighter whiter lighting when producing reproductions. Even though I abhor as much as anyone else the desire to "imnprove" files by brightening and sharpening colours, and therefore move away from a true reproduction of an artwork,, Commons serves as a repository of files and images, its up to editors on local projects to choose which they use, its not for Commons to impose upon editors aesthetic or other standards as to what is the best or superior file. De sterrennacht, and its dicussion page, may be of interest.--KTo288 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Amphibious_assault_ships_of_India

Amphibious assault ships of India 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!

Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 06:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:20th Fighter Wing F-100Ds, RAF Wethersfield.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:20th Fighter Wing F-100Ds, RAF Wethersfield.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:20th Fighter Wing F-100Ds, RAF Wethersfield.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Classical_music_sound_by_Michael_Bednarek

Category:Classical_music_sound_by_Michael_Bednarek 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!

Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:77th Fighter Squadron F-84Gs RAF Wethersfield.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:77th Fighter Squadron F-84Gs RAF Wethersfield.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:United_States_Navy_images_by_location

United States Navy images by location 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!

Reguyla (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User Page

Thank you for checking out my accidental creation and removing it! Jamesjpk (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome.--KTo288 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Help me

I would like to know if I can create another account even if it already has more than two lost accounts I forget the password of the two accounts first was this Leonardo.G G and this G.Leonardo if I can access some of the dual I can contribute quiet to the project commons without problems in the future. --177.98.24.221 02:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(would ping but you're posting as an ip) As someone who lost my original account because of a forgotten password I can symaphise. as long as you don't use multiple accounts abusively, e.g. to evade a block or to stack a vote, creating a third account is allowable. Personally I would link to my previous accounts at the top of my new user page and explain that these are dormant lost accounts, and link to my new user page from the old accounts explaining the same. RegardS.--KTo288 (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

… for handling my speedy deletion request so fast! ;–) Best regards,

--Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome.--KTo288 (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)