User talk:Odder/Archive 002

Archives: 1

On UJCE Logo

Despite the information given UJCElogo.png image was deleted, Just to know, why was it done with no previous announcement

User:odderBot

Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko 15:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prawa autorskie

File:Dapper with apps pl.png

Ten zrzut ekranu zawiera loga chronione prawami autorskimi (Google). Należy usunąć obrazek z Commons. BeŻet 10:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

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.

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 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Proposed Flag of Greenland by Achen.png

You deleted as superseded by an svg version and being unused. Well, I wanted to see it out of curiosity, and I can't seem to find it, could you point me in the right direction please. Also it seems very used by the image description page. Bawolff 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

desc, edit mosaic (row: 27) --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

woluwe

Hello ,

i'm deleted all my contribution for wikipedia

thanks , ciao

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dreamland

Without reason deleted images

Please undelete images discussed at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Summary deletions. They were deleted without reason and proper procedures. Your administrator rights should be taken away because of despotism.

Category:The Writings of Charles Dickens subcategories

Hi Odder. Please do not delete any of the Category:The Writings of Charles Dickens subcategories. I am in the process of digitizing and uploading images to populate them. Thanks. ~MDD 46 96 04:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Upper Volta.svg

Hi, you used a 3:5 ratio for the Flag of Upper Volta. FOTW says 2:3, and Image:Upper Volta flag large.png use a 2:3 ratio as well. Do you have a source for 3:5? If not please update the image to 2:3 (e.g. 1000px × 1500px). The colours seem to be OK. Thanks. -- burts ∞ 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monasteries in Spain

Hi. Odder. I have seen your bot editions to change Monasteries of Spain to Monasteries in Spain. My message is just to inform you that I have created the page adding the categories of the former Monasteries of Spain, and to remember you that when a massive emigration of a category is done, the author of the changes must replace all the information to the new one. Thank you. --Balbo 13:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, then. I see that you have deleted the old category. Thanks, and cheers!--Balbo 11:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos from Turkey

I am a little puzzled. You have deleted Logo ihd.gif putting fair use. I wanted to use it in the German wikipedia and asked experts about it. If you know German you can read my questions and comments here. It was mainly about Schöpfungshöhe which in the templates seems to relate to ineligible. I was told that the logo(s) did not reach the required level of artistic value (my free translation of Schöpfungshöhe. In the commons I was confused because you can change the language in preferences but then you are told that the common language is English. I tried this but used a German template to state that the picture was ineligible for copyright. However this note and the categories turned red when I saved the page. As a newbie I do not understand all this and would be happy, if you can enlighten me on the issue.--Ob.helm 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Odder/clean the Commons!/other

Hi, I only have reserved some stuff to work today before going to bed :) In a few minutes I start reviewing these images Lugusto • ※ 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Image Tagging Image:Fabien_Barthez.jpg

Hi, I just saw the message you leave on my discuss section about this picture. I'm not sure to understand what is the problem with this shot. I am the author of this photography, I've just cut it (using open source program The Gimp) and then put in on Commons. I know the rules of Commons about copyright and I choose to place the photo under the double free licence. I'm not sure that you will persude that I am really the author but I hope you will trust me.

Forgive me if this message isn't clear but I'm not an english speaker, I'm french. Have a nice day ! Sanguinez 09:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the quality but the zoomer was on his best (it's a 6 million pixels camera but I was at the top of the stadium) ! If you think that work is unaceptable remove it but I think it's a mistake. there's no un copyrighted of this 1998 world champion on one of the Wikipedia's projects, so it's the only picture acceptable, even if it's a poor quality one ! Sanguinez 11:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's me aggain but I don't understand !!!! Why did you remove my two others pictures !!! if you think it's bad quality ones, OK but there was here to illustrate articles not to be candidate to be featured picture candidates. Commons is a place to share photos between the different wikipedia projects, not to be a contest of quality, isn't it ?? So, could you please replace the images, or should I inform other person that you delete my files because you... don't like them ?? Sanguinez 11:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand but these were as acceptable as others to illustrate some articles ! So I still don't understand why ONE person should decide about the deletion. Plus, if you just look on this picture as a thumb there are not so bad ! The french project needs this pictures who are not so bad, could you please unremoved them ! Thank you ! PS : you know, i think this picture is to red, can we removed it ! I don't want to fight with you, so why do you want to fight against my work ?? Sanguinez 12:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adolphus_W._Brower_House3_plaque.jpg

I added the license, an oversight on my part. Though I am not sure I get what you are saying on how it doesn't specify the author, it most certainly does. A mcmurray 12:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos effacées sans raison

Bonjour, je peux savoir pourquoi tu as effcé mes photos personnelles sur la "collection de tératologie" du musée d'anatomie de montpellier et de l'entrée de l'Université Montpellier 2??? Ce sont mes photos que j'ai pris avec mon appareil numérique Labigoudene 15:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I want to know why do you have deleyated my own photos about the "musée d'anatomie de Montpellier" and "Bu um2". Im am the autor of these photos, so I want some explications about this scandalous arbitrary suppression. Labigoudene 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These images were intended for my personal page of user in Wikipedia, I have the right my to put these pics in my personnal page if I specify that these images should not be diffused on other pages or with functions other than those specifically mentioned in the description page. So, I don't understand these suppressions Labigoudene 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:AhnJH070408.jpg

I took that picture with my own camera and uploaded it with brief comment saying "직접 촬영" which means "my own work". And that also have {{PD-self}} tag. I think it is better for you to remove 'no source since' tag. Thank you. :) --JeongAhn 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kościelec kaliski.jpg

Zanim "z automatu" wstawisz "brak licencji" - wysil się choć odrobinę: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Walensa - przecież gołym okiem widać, że facet zrobił tam kilka zdjęć, którym nadał GNUFDL, a w tym jednym najzwyczajniej zapomniał.

Nie włączaj się do chóru delecjonistów z commons, dla których każdy pretekst do likwidacji każdego zdjęcia jest dobry. W odróżnieniu od haseł w Wikipedii, z której należy - moim zdaniem - usuwać wszelkie knoty i niedopracowane hasełka, to w COMMONS należy starać się zachować jak najwięcej zdjęć. W moim wieku już się zauważa, jak szybko i bezpowrotnie potrafią znikać ciekawe - a także całkiem najzwyczajniejsze - budowle, jak trudno ich wygląd po latach odtworzyć.

Nie zgłaszaj do kasowania "jak leci", postaraj się trochę. Julo 23:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does one tag images

Hi, Odder. You left a message for me indicating that basically all my images are not tagged. The trouble is, it took me a while to figure out what 'tagging' means in this context. All my images have proper licensing information. Most of these were generated by the Commons Upload page, after I selected proper licensing entry. Perhaps the tools should be enhanced to automatically convert these pages to use the new tagging templates? Perhaps the upload page should be enhanced to use them?

Take this image for example. Notice how I use the Information template and specify Permission=Released under the GNU Free Documentation License.? It is not clear to me exactly what tag I am supposed to use to replace them. Why can't the robots do this global replacement, if this is now the new standard?

Thanks. And I appreciate the clean up effort. I just thought that the whole process is not clearly stated for people who are not involved in the design of the clean up process. Thanks. Fredhsu 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm... I see, a few people and you have added the GFDL template to many of my images. Thank you. Did I somehow remove this tag by mistake when I uploaded images? Sometimes I take the Edit page of one image and paste it into subsequently-uploaded images. Perhaps I left out the tag. Thanks anyway. Fredhsu 02:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with Image:Daumier-Dieu_Soult.jpg?

Could you please explain, with reference to the notice User_talk:Jmabel#Image_Tagging_Image:Daumier-Dieu_Soult.jpg, what is the problem? The notice says "the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear." The image page is quite specific as to who created the content—Honoré Daumier—and as to the original publication date: June 28, 1832, which clearly makes this public domain. I honestly don't see how this could have been clearer. - en:Jmabel | talk 07:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I added some notes when I wandered into this page via the Village Pump posts, so I could figure out what was what, and so forth. Suggest you may want to make that a common heading on all these pages, but since it's your user space, I felt it should be your call. Also suggest this should all be moved this to a commons project page instead of a personal user page. This is a really good idea. Also, please note the use of Template:TOCright (Edit Discussion links Page history) which is pretty much an interwiki standard. Best wishes and regards // FrankB 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Amanita_vittadinii.JPG

I put the correct license to my picture! See you soon. --Roberto1974 13:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aglaoctenus.lagotis.eye.arrangement.svg

hi,

you deleted the above mentioned picture. sorry that i did not answer in time, i was not visiting commons for some weeks. anyway, the image has proper copyright status, that is, it's released under the same license as for example this one: Image:Cabello.eugeni.dorsal.svg. i must have forgotten to enter the license. is it possible to un-delete the file, because i don't have it on my machine any more? cheers --Sarefo 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banner of Peace image

Hi there, thanks for your congratulations and for the SVG image. Like all of the images which you made, it's highly appreciated! --Uwe 16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Clear

Hi, can you please protect Crystal Clear. It has been linked from Digg and is being vandalized heavily (see the page history). I made a request at COM:AN/B#Crystal_Clear, but thought of dropping a note on your talk page, as you seem to online. Utcursch 11:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ulica Lwowska, Warsaw

Cześć. Czy możesz usunąć Category:Ulica Lwowska, Warsaw bo jest tez Lwowska street in Warsaw i po co mają być dwie, bo ja jako zwykły użytkownik chyba nie mogę tej kategorii zlikwidować. Pozdrawiam --Ala z 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Tucuman

Hi Odder I read your message and I've already corrected the tags. I didn't change the status "this file may be deleted" so my question is, do I have to do it? or is it your responsibility? Thanks

Regards Jlazarte

Image:Cw1.gif

Hello, i see you delete this image. I would like to know why, because it exists Cw0.gif and Cw3.gif. Thanks a lot. ~ bayo or talk 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a green video game image, you can use Image:Nexuiz - screenshot 8.jpg. ~ bayo or talk 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galeria zlotu

Witaj, wrzuciłem Twoje fotki do galerii zlotu. Proszę opisz je tylko. Pozdrawiam. Pimke 10:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grafiki - własność rządowa III Rzeszy i zasady autorskich praw materialnych - na marginesie PD-Polish

Na marginesie dyskusji o Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polish cały pakiet spraw dot.

1. Grafik, których prawnym właścicielem był rząd III Rzeszy (np. MSZ III Rzeszy),lub agencje państwowe ( jak Deutsches NAchrichten Buro) - A NIE OSOBY PRYWATNE- prawa wygasły w maju 1945 po likwidacji III Rzeszy jako państwa -podmiotu prawa cywilnego. Prosi się o stworzenie Template:PD-NaziGov.

2. Zauważyłem ,że niektórzy administratorzy (konkretnie-niemieccy) próbują wykorzystać dyrektywę harmonizującą EU dla generalnej blokady foto sprzed 1945 r.- niezależnie od proweniencji.

3.Tymczasem podstawową sprawą jest kwestia istnienia lub nie MATERIALNYCH praw majątkowych do dzieła, ktore są zbywalne i mogą ulec umorzeniu nawet przed datą śmierci autora.

4.Przykładowo - zdjęcie , do którego prawa zostały sprzedane np.Ilustrowanemu Kurierowi Codziennemu czy DNB,albo wykonane przez pracownika Ministerstwa Propagandy Rzeszy czy DNB , a osoba prawna uległa likwidacji bez następców prawnych prawa nabytego jest zdjęciem w domenie publicznej (prawo zbyte skutecznie nie wraca do zbywcy -autora)

5. Poza tym bardzo dużo starych zdjęć to zdjęcia legitymacyjne, paszportowe etc robione przez rzemieślnicze zakłady fotograficzne , które albo w ogóle nie są ( i nie powinny być )przedmiotem prawa autorskiego , albo jeśli traktować to restrykcyjnie - prawa do nich zostały zbyte przez wykonawcę (twórcę)- fotografa w chwili wyjścia klienta z zakładu fotograficznego po zapłaceniu za wykonanie zdjęcia, niezależnie od tego gdzie pozostał negatyw ( i nikt po wydarzeniach II wojny i komunizmu badać tego nie będzie)

6. Pozostaje kwestia zdjęć amatorskich - bez autorstwa. Jeśli już dziś niektórzy niemieccy admini chcą usuwać zdjęcia egzekucji dokonanych przez Wehrmacht w 1939 r vide : Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ciepielow.jpg

pod pretekstem dyrektywy harmonizacyjnej i poszukiwania autora ( gdyby się znalazł - to pierwszy do zawiadomienia - Prokurator IPN)...

a zdjęcia z powstania w getcie warszawskim zostały usunięte to aż się prosi o rozwinięcie tematu.

A prawna sytuacja jest taka,że w prawie europejskim ciężar dowodu faktu spoczywa na osobie,która z tego faktu chce wyciągnąć konsekwencje prawne. Dotyczy to zarówno prawa karnego ( domniemanie nieiwnności) jak i cywilnego , którego częścią jest prawo autorskie. Tzn. o ile nie ma dowodu na zastrzeżenie prawa o tyle ono nie istnieje . W polskim prawie autorskim przerzuca to ciężar dowodu na autora ,zaś wydawca ma jedynie OBOWIĄZEK ZACHOWANIA NALEŻYTEJ STARANNOŚCI - tzn. wiedzieć to co może uzyskać przy zachowaniu zwykłych wymogów staranności. Prawo zakłada domniemanie dobrej wiary użytkownika rzeczy czy prawa tzn. ewentualne naruszenie prawa materialnego może stwierdzić tylko właściciel tego prawa zwracając się z żądaniem do użytkownika o zaprzestanie naruszenia prawa ( i udowadniając swój interes prawny). Tzn. trzeba wykazać naruszenie prawa.

Ponieważ jest to powszechna zasada prawa rzymskiego ,obowiązująca zarówno w prawie polskim, jak i niemieckim inne postępowanie jest uzurpacją i po prostu robieniem ludziom wody z mózgu poprzez świadome mieszanie pojęcia autorskiego prawa osobistego, autorskiego prawa materialnego, zasady należytej staranności, domniemania legalności i zasady cięzaru dowodu po stronie tego, który zgłasza zarzut naruszenia prawa.

Generalnie: często słyszany argument,że każda grafika ma autora należy uzupełnić następująco: KAŻDA GRAFIKA MA AUTORA ALE WCALE NIE KAŻDA MA WŁAŚCICIELA i nie ma to nic wspólnego z datą śmierci autora.

To takie wstępne uwagi , które IMHO warto przemyśleć w długi weekend a potem przegadać z innymi adminami na Commons i na wikipl.

Serdecznie pozdrawiam:

Andros64 08:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ujcelogo.png

Image:Ujcelogo.png once again has been erased by despite being expressly authorised by email by the lgeal holders of the image rights of the organisation. Once again you didn't ask before removing the image, despite anything. I am stating to suspect you are acting by sole political motives.

SVG herby

Dlaczego znowu skasowależ File:Arms Lewin Brzeski.png? Mogleś wsadzić i przeczytać szablon “This file has been superseded by XXX”. Bo tam piszą uwagi przed kasowaniem, n.p. “Is the representation of the flag / COA / symbol correct?”. W tym przypadku to pitanie można odpowiedzieć z słowem "nie", bo svg herb jest na podstawie nieaktualnego herbu – więc nie ma powodu aby skasować tą grafikę...--PetrusSilesius 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote from the municipal website is the blazon of the coat of arms of Lewin Brzeski. But it doesn't mean that every arms showing these elements is the official one. It's the business of an heraldist to give an unique layout to every coat of arms. According to your statement "there is no "original" version of the COA" this

is the coat of arms of the Republic of Poland, or this

the one of Germany. I have found Poznaniak's version of the Lewin Brzeski coat of arms in a pre 1989 book, but the actual coa has another (a worse) design. Poznaniak made a good job of the arms of Miastko

, replacing

, which following your point of view would be the same arms. --PetrusSilesius 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Nasenbohrer - it is not a copyvio

Hello Odder, my name is Günter Reinberg. I have seen that you have delete the picture "Nasenbohrer". But it is not a copyvio. Why do you think this? Have I make a miskake? Nasenbohrer is a special work (algographie) from Carsten Eggers (see his homepage). And he give me his agreement to show the foto on Wikipedia. It would be nice if you can answer. Many greetings - User egno - G.Reinberg

Ulica Ostrobramska, Warsaw

Category:Ulica Ostrobramska, Warsaw
Category:Ulica Senatorska, Warsaw

Czy możesz usunąć te kategorie? Z góry dziękuję :)--Ala z 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Laupheim_Schranne.jpg

You've tagged this picture as not specifying who created the content, so the copyright status would be unclear. I took that picture and I have added some information, so hopefully the copyright status is clearer now. If that is the case, then please remove the tag. If not, please let me know and inform me as to what information is needed. Thanks. Ekki01 18:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peter Paul Rubens 105 1.JPG

oraz Image:PierLuisFarnesio por Tiziano1.png i Image:Leonardo da Vinci - Madonata v peshterata.jpg. Odderze drogi, ja rozumiem, że sprzątanie grafik bez licencji jest nużące i można się pomylić, ale to są oczywiste przypadki, kiedy tylko wystarczyło dodać samemu licencję, a nie kasować przydatne i używane często na różnych Wikipediach grafiki (CommonsDelinker już zdążył pousuwać linki :/). Nie wyłączaj, proszę, swojego zdrowego rozsądku, coby szkody nie czynić. Maire 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wien.Mozart house01.jpg

Can you restore this image ? I've been travelling for a while and I just saw this message today. I'll add the proper licence ASAP. JoJan 15:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorie

Ok, staram się aby wszystkie moje grafiki miały kategorie, te akurat nie dostały bo miałam to zrobić za chwilę :) Ale jak już do mnie napisałeś to zadam Ci pytanie:) Czy mogę ujednolicić nazwy ulic w Warszawie na np. Grochowska Street in Warsaw a nie Ulica Grochowska, Warsaw. Bo są tak i tak. Wtedy podałabym Ci które kategorii do usunięcia.--Ala z 07:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a co trzeba zrobić jak wypisało przy zdjęciu "no license tag!". Wpisałam to co było na wikipedii i nie wiem co jeszcze :/ --Ala z 07:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Łużyce w Europie.png ten plik był duplikatem, zmieniłam już nazwy w innych projektach, czy możesz go usunąć --Ala z 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:PicTypOR.jpg

Hello Odder, I simply got rid of such discussions. I leave it up to you either to restore that said pic or I will definitely delete that's to say override all my pics uploaded to wiki:commons with blanks. Islandhopper 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why my pictures were deleted?

its not violation nothing.. explain please

Clotrimazole

Sorry Odder, but do you have nothing better to do than producing great-looking SVG images? Just kidding of course, thanks a lot for the great SVG version of the structure formula of Clotrimazole! Perhaps you can do the same for the synthesis formula: Image:Clotrimazol Synthesis.png? It would be a great addition to the featured article about Clotrimazole in the German Wikipedia. And it would be nice if you could use the same molecular orientation (the formula of Clotrimazole on the right side of the reaction is drawn slighly different from the structure formula which you produced but means exactly the same), as well as the same font and drawing style as you used in the image of the structure formula, so that both images look similar. --Uwe 13:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work again, thanks a lot! A good article just got better. --Uwe 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zdjęcie

witam. chciałbym umieścić na wikipedii commons zdjęcie amerykańskiego rapera Xzibit'a, które znalazłem na stronie: http://www.xzibitcentral.com/pictures/pages/Xzibit-picture-0315.php Nie wiem jaką dać licencję. Proszę powiedz mi jaka ma być lub umieść to zdjęcie zamiast mnie i podaj mi adres do niego. Będę bardzo wdzięczny.

Massimo Macconi

I happened to be looking at Massimo_Macconi's user talk page. I don't see the problem with the image you discuss at User_talk:Massimo_Macconi#Image_Tagging_Image:Neuch.C3.A2tel3.JPG. Seems pretty clear that he is saying he took the picture. He wrote "autore Massimo Macconi". - Jmabel | talk 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odder, nie kasuj stron "bo zostały zastąpione kategorią" - zamiast kasować zrób redirect do kategorii, bo usuwając stronę psujesz linki na nie wiadomo ilu Wikiprojektach (szablon "Commons") i być może na zewnątrz. Dzięki. // tsca [re] 23:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Conventions image

Good evening Odder, nice idea to convert the image about the development of the Geneva Conventions to a SVG. There is a small but significant problem with the SVG: if you compare it with the original PNG version (or the German version) you will see in the SVG that some of the conventions are not in line with the timeline at the top of the image. The probable reasons are that the font size of the timeline is different from the font size of the boxes in the SVG, while the font sizes are the same for both parts of the image in the original PNG. In addition to that, all boxes have the same size in the original PNG, while in the SVG the boxes with the word "Revision" are smaller in width than the other boxes. It would be nice if you could correct these issues as the current SVG is inaccurate regarding the timing of the conventions. For example, the Hague Convention II was established in 1899 (like the Hague Convention III) and the Hague Convention IV in 1907 (like the Hague Convention X). In the current SVG version, it instead looks like the Hague Convention II was established at the same time as the first Geneva Convention (1864). Apart from that, thank you again for your great efforts! Best Regards, --Uwe 21:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's correct now. Thank you for this phantastic piece of work, the quality is much better now! --Uwe 12:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one very very small aesthetic issue: can you adjust the vertical position of the boxes for the Hague Convention II and the Hague Convention IV so that they are exactly in the vertical middle between the boxes of the Geneva Convention III and the Geneva Convention IV? In that way, the line which leads from the Hague Convention IV to the Geneva Convention IV will arrive at the middle of the box of the Geneva Convention IV which would look better than in the current version. --Uwe 12:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now it's perfect! --Uwe 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AaliMounds.jpg

Just checked the deletion log - you seem to be online. Can you please delete Image:AaliMounds.jpg. It's a copyright violation, and has to be deleted as soon as possible per an OTRS request (Ticket #2007082610002511). It has been tagged since yesterday, but nobody has deleted it yet. 202.54.176.11 10:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GreenCopyleft.svg

As far as I can understand, you've edited the code manually in the text editor. I think that my work in Inkscape may ruine your work, so I ask you to add white circle at the background to make the sign look better on dark backgrounds. Thank you in advance. — Kalan ? 03:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deine Wappenvektorisierungen

Hallo Odder, beim Vektorisieren der Wappen könntest du bitte folgende Punkte beachten:

Du gibst als Quelle für die Wappen „own work“ an. Das Wappen ist aber nicht deinem Geiste entsprungen, sondern es hat vor geraumer Zeit einmal aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach ein Heraldiker erstellt, du jedenfalls nicht. Daher ist der Hinweis „own work“, der sich stets auf das Gesamtwerk bezieht, mehr als irreführend. Was du getan hast, ist (nicht mehr als) die Vektorisierung der alten Wappenversion. Anstelle des „own work“ sollte also die direkte Quelle für das von dir hochgeladene Wappen stehen, die du du aus der alten, nicht vektorisieren Version übernimmst (also bei Image:DEU Emmendingen-Wasser COA.svg übernimmst du aus Image:Wappen Wasser.png die Quelle www.ngw.nl). Wenn du die alten Wappenversion löschst, wie du es getan hast, ist die Quelle für Nichtadmins nicht mehr einsehbar, also ein großes lizenzrechtliches Defizit! Weiterhin ist es nicht ausreichend, den ursprünglichen Hochlader zu nennen, sondern stehts zusätzlich den alten Dateinamen, das liegt m.E. auf der Hand. Unter Author sollte statt Odder entweder der Name des Heraldikers stehen, häufig ist dieser aber nicht bekannt, dann lässt man das eben weg und du kannst in beiden Fällen noch ein „converted into SVG format by Odder“ o.ä. dahinschreiben. Hier für Image:DEU Emmendingen-Wasser COA.svg der Maßstab, andem man sich orientieren könnte

Description

English: Coat of arms of Wasser (part of the city of Emmendingen).

Deutsch: Wappen Wassers (Stadtteil Emmendingens).

Polski: Herb dzielnicy Wasser miasta Emmendingen.

Date

24 September 2007

Source

www.ngw.nl, based on png version originally uploaded to the Commons by Enslin (Image:Wappen Wasser.png)

Author

Converted into SVG format by odder

Permission
(Reusing this file)

This file depicts the coat of arms of a German Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law). According to § 5 Abs. 1 of the German Copyright law, official works like coats of arms are in the public domain. Note: The usage of coats of arms is governed by legal restrictions, independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here.

Wappen Deutschlands

Was du außerdem beachten solltest, sind die Dateinamen des Wappenumfeldes, in das du deine Vektorversion hineinlädst. "DEU Emmendingen-Wasser COA" ist wirklich sehr eigenartig (wofür das DEU, warum COA, warum setzt du den Namen der Stadt davor, obwohl das Wappen in erster Linie für die Zeit der Eigenständigkeit galt und überhaupt?). Viele Grüße--Notschrei 11:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SchematFlinders.svg

Witaj! Mam małą prośbę. Ponad rok wisi pewna moja grafika niewykorzystana. Zrobiłem ją na czyjeś zamówienie ale zamawiający jej nie potrzebuje. Szkoda miejsca na serwerze. Dzięki. Pozdrawiam. Bastian 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:POL eMule search results.gif

Image deletion warning

Image:POL eMule search results.gif 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Damian Yerrick (☎) 16:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]