User talk:LX/Archive/2011: October to December

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

licence

[edit]

Thank you message! The licence is good today! Szajci pošta 08:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures Uploaded through Wikipedia Commons

[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:CherryGirl22#File:Pangong Tso Range.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balansören.jpg

[edit]

Hi Alex, I have some difficulties to find proper attribution info for this image. Could correct them if they are not right? Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 12:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the best I could to clean up the file description. I hope that's better. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A major improvement, thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 15:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervention

[edit]

Thanks for your fast intervention regarding the vandalism of IP No 178.232.124.8 today (multiple requestis for deletion of pictures of Swedish outdoor sculptures). You may have noticed that the person behind was cunny enough to sweep his or her electronic tracks, so this seems to be a sheer vandalism and not an act of an innocent newbeginner. Regards Boberger (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. (It was actually yesterday, though.) They've also edited from the following IP addresses:
These all belong to Norwegian mobile operator NetCom AS. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opmerking bij afbeelding BHIC en BHIC1

[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Bakel123#File tagging File:Bhic1.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnery.jpg

[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chinnery.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eleutherna Bridge

[edit]

Hello. Concerning the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gun Powder Ma, could you please add the License Review template for these two images (File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 02.jpg and File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 04.jpg), as you already did for the other two (1 and 3). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Those five confirmed of the Category:Arapsu Bridge (Ticket 2009121210021853) still need this renewal template, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Plus these 29 pictures of the Category:Eurymedon Bridge (Selge) (Ticket 2009121210021979). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I didn't add {{LicenseReview}} to those images; Adrignola did.[1][2] The purpose of {{LicenseReview}} is that a trusted user verifies licensing information from another site in case the site disappears at a later date. When the licensing information has already been confirmed and archived by OTRS, that's not necessary. If the license can be seen on another website, you can provide more precise source addresses and ask a license reviewer (I'm not on that list) to review the licenses if you want, but again, since the licensing has already been confirmed through OTRS, it's not necessary. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But, in case of the Eurymedon and Arapsu Bridge, did you change the OTRS to the renewed permission given by Mr Rochow? Just want to make sure that the issue is settled once and for all. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gun Powder Ma, Adrignola filed the updated permission info under the same ticket ID as the old permission. This means that if someone with access to OTRS looks up these files, they'll find the up to date information. So it's all good. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 08:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I assume you've allready know about it, but related is Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif →AzaToth 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discours_du_18_juin_1940_du_Général_De_Gaulle_à_Londres.jpg

[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Discours du 18 juin 1940 du Général De Gaulle à Londres.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

???

[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Dagane#File source is not properly indicated: File:Casadejuntas.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Copyright_violations

[edit]
Category discussion warning

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

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

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

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−
84.62.204.7 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny indeed. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reactie

[edit]

Ik heb al dagen geleden gereageerd op Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oude Bakelsedyk.png, maar heb nog steeds geen reactie terug ontvangen! Ik wil graag dat de afbeelding blijft! (Daar heb ik mijn redenen voor!) Mvg Bakel123 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand your response. The administrator that decides what to do with the deletion request will consider the comments you made there. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for your response! Mvg Bakel123 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (ps. my english is not so good)[reply]

Claude PIARD

[edit]

Excuse my very poor english. I had answer you in "discussion" of the file. Thank you.--Claude PIARD (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocage"

[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Claude PIARD#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alger FSGPF

[edit]

Hello, LX!

Thank you for your precious, judicious and relevant contributions!

Thank you also for your remarkable improvements relating to the numerous details and protocol regarding the diverse aspects of uploading!

As you seem to be particularly well informed about the various existing licenses, which one would you choose as being specifically related to the aforesaid image, as mentioned in the title?

Thank you in advance for your help!

Vänliga hälsningar!

euphonie breviary
02:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I will comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alger FSGPF.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LX!
Thank you for your message!
I have also posted an additional reply on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alger FSGPF.jpg.
Hälsningar och god natt!
euphonie breviary
19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Gadget Update: UserMessages

[edit]

Hi Alex!

Thanks for testing, commenting, improving and using AxUserMsg.js . This is essentially important for developers and highly appreciated. The script is now available in your preferences. This will also speed-up page loading.

Please remove the line importScript("User:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js") from your monobook.js before activating the ordinary gadget.

If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask me or put them here. Even if you dislike a new feature.

Thank you! -- RE rillke questions? 13:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, thank you for the notice! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvionote - where to talk

[edit]

Just if you don't have it on your watchlist: Revision of Template:Copyvionote/en. I think talk should always done on the talk-page like suggested by {{Copyvio}} and like you changed the message. I hope we can avoid a long discussion about this matter with the reverter. Here is a suggestion what to tell him:

Hi Teofilo,

I recognized your change at Revision of Template:Copyvionote/en. While I personally like keeping discussions where they started, I think file-description pages serve only for information purposes: Source, license, author and other essential information about a file. In my view, discussions should take place on the file-talk-page only. The administrator deleting the file has to take care to read the discussion on either place.

I hope you find some more convincing arguments. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for not replying sooner. Unsurprisingly, I agree with your assessment. The place for discussion is on the discussion page. There is no obvious place or established method for "replying" to a problem tag on file description pages, where signatures and threading are typically not expected. A copyvio tag is primarily a notification of a problem rather than the opening argument of a discussion. Unlike a discussion entry, it isn't signed. This can be compared to discussions regarding the appropriateness of {{Fact disputed}} tagging, which should not take place on the file description page, but on the discussion page. In fact, this is how all other problem tags and maintenance tags and their related discussions work on all other Wikimedia projects that I'm aware of. For example, en:Template:POV does not encourage neutrality discussion to take place on the article page itself. If the perceived problem with conducting discussions on the discussion page is that they get overlooked by deleting admins, we can modify {{Copyvio}} with administrator instructions that detect if a talk page exist. Template:No source since/en currently has such a notification. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LX/Archive/2011:_October_to_December&oldid=67693003"