User talk:Tuvalkin/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Aubrieta deltoidea (by Laure Baley - cropped).jpg

File:Aubrieta deltoidea (by Laure Baley - cropped).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Alan Liefting (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2015 (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!
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） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Gunnex (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ItamarFrancoPresidente.jpg

Hi, Tuválkin. I do not understand Portuguese, so please help me and comment the request. Taivo (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My 2,00 c€ added and sadly a  delete vote. But maybe User:Gunnex has a better idea: unlike him, I don’t know much about copyright, and I’m not Brazilian. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Buffalo&Birdie.jpg

File:Buffalo&Birdie.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

MPF (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

kea + mwl

Hi, I've created some missing {{User kea}}-[0|1|2|3|N], added them to {{User/Language1}}@k, created the missing Category:User kea-[0|1|2|3|N], and requested an {{Editprotected}} on Template:Babel list of languages adding older {{User ain}} and {{User av}} sets while at it.

So far it was simple, and maybe pointless, at the moment you are the only user in the new kea categories. But on your user page you also have {{User mwl-1}}, and apparently that should be {{User ast-1}}, or rather, that's what the link in {{User mwl-1}} suggests. Is that correct, can I simply redirect {{User mwl-1}} to {{User ast-1}}, or is something not as it should be? –Be..anyone (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Be..anyone, thanks for the kea work — Capeverdean is a vibrant language with almost half a million speakers on three continents. I hope and expect its usage scope to grow soon and its speakers to finally start using it for things like Wikimedia projects. (My knowledge of it is merely passive, though: I cannot create any content, only read others’.) (pinging Waldir -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC))
-- Tuválkin ✉ 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You’re right that mwl is a subset of ast, however, Mirandese (thusly termed) is enshrined in the Constitution as an official language of Portugal (a completely bogus accolade, with no practical meaning), and has even a separate, official spelling (you can trust Portuguese linguists to make a mess of things and ignore a century of dialectological and orthographic ground work made by their collegues abroad). I’d warmly welcome a solution that would subsum me among Asturian-Leonese speakers (again, as a non-speaker with mere passive understanding) yet somehow, if possible, retaining the separate Babel boxes and their labels for user pages…
-- Tuválkin ✉ 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming

This issue of your misinterpretation of our guideline will continue to cause trouble as long as you keep making statements that are simply not try, and keep blocking/attacking those who are correctly interpreting the guideline. Stability is important but not paramount. The guideline lists some scenarios where stability can be overruled in order to improve some other quality, and a rename can generally be performed without great community discussion. The guideline also has an incomplete list of scenarios where the case to overrule stability is so weak that these should generally never be performed (though there may be the odd exception). For other cases, like the one at Village Pump, it is not obvious. A community discussion is appropriate. You seem to think the first list is in fact the only circumstances when renaming is ever justified. That's simply not true, and is a misreading of the guideline. Saying "do not rename files" is a "hard-and-fast rule" is absolutely wrong. Perhaps there's a language problem and you should consult a dictionary before commenting. Because "hard-and-fast" is a rule with no exceptions and that can never be changed. But there are exceptions. Stability is merely a very important quality. No more than that. If you can't understand that, then I suggest you find a good friend with a better grasp of language to help interpret the guideline for you. -- Colin (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Nothing to add about the subject matter: Looks like we agree to disagree about COM:FR, me taking a maximalist view of it, for the sake of stability and to avoid a slippery slope of improvement-renaming.)
That my “grasp” of English might not be sufficent for a unsupervised participation in the curation work here, were that true, would be an alarming cue that the use of English as Commons’ lingua franca is unsuitable, by shutting off all but the most skilled non-natives. However, and considering the whole of your interaction with me, the apparently reasonable piece above notwithstanding, I go for a simple and more sensible conclusion: That you are trying to shut me off from the discussion, and making use of whatever excuses you can: Me being a non-native English speaker with slightly above average command and supposedly someone conscious of language use praxis and ethics issues in an international setting (no shit, Sherlock!) offered you the necessary ammo.
Alas, I’m unbudged: I’ll go on expressing my opinion whenever and wherever I feel like, as clearly as my skills allow. You can take it at face value, or you can ignore me — that would be probably the best, as your bad faith is transparent, even when you mask it under smarmy, fake sympathy.
Speaking louder than any re-framed language issue you may raise publicly to cast doubt about my Commons experience and trustworth, there is my work record here (I just added in my sig a link to my contribution history). Hesitant third parties will know exactly what is going on when you repeatedly demean and insult me.
(Messages from you in my talk page are unpleasant. Please make sure you do not come here more than the stricly necessary minimum.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm disappointed you view my attempt at trying to resolve our differences as "unpleasant". I am genuinely trying to understand why someone with your apparent intelligence (I'm not being sarcastic) has so much difficulty with word-use that is clearly not what those words mean. Far from trying to shut you off, if you would express your opinion on the village pump and elsewhere as mere opinion ("In my opinion we should not rename this file / should rarely rename any files / whatever") then I would have no problem with it. But instead you repeat falsehoods as fact. I fail to see how your contribution history makes any difference if what you actually write is wrong. What you believe is your own concern. It is this (and your very unpleasant attack of another editor when they renamed in a way you disapproved of, and which was ultimately caused by your extremely sub-optimal choice of filename in the first place) that I react to. I'm not sure where you think the "bad faith" comes from, and you need to stop thinking of me as an enemy if there is any chance we can work together. And there's no reason we can't. My concern is merely your hostile and fundamentalist approach to file renaming. Outside of that I have no issue with you that I can recall. Since we appear to have reached a stalemate about what FR guideline actually says/means then I do genuinely suggest you find a third-party to help advise. I myself am open to hear what others may think on what the guideline says and doesn't say. There is a third possibility -- that the guideline does not in fact represent community practice or views on this matter -- and if that is the case then I recommend you propose changes to improve its wording. -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

a photo of Ligardes

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Image_release_on_Facebook

thanks for having uploaded the photo 92.156.193.124 06:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Publicação de fotos de outro autor

Saudações. Visitei recentemente um blog e o autor do blog e das respectivas fotos deu-me autorização para eu as publicar na wikipédia nos artigos que eu achasse necessário.

O website do blog é este, onde um pouco abaixo da foto, poderá ver a conversa que eu tive com o autor das fotografias:

Será que é possível eu fazer upload e identificar a autoria da foto escrevendo este link e o nome do respectivo autor?

Cumprimentos, Luís Angelo "Tuga1143 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Olá! A resposta curta é — não: A licença para «publicar na Wikipédia, sem que haja qualquer alteração ou modificação» é muito mais restritiva do que o mínimo que se exige para o Wikimedia Commmons, que pede que
  1. o uso seja irrestrito, inclusivamente para fins comerciais (e não uso autorizado apenas para a Wikipédia);
  2. a reutilização da obra seja também irrestrita, incluindo a sua modificação.
(Creio que já tínhamos falado disto?) É possível carregar ficheiros para uso “local” em cada projeto (neste caso, carregar na Wikipédia em Português para uso apenas naquele saite), mas suponho que a política interna da Wikipédia em Português é de não utilizar imagens para as quais existe alternativa no Commons (penso que é assim, mas é melhor verificar!). Ora no Commons existe a Category:Boeing B-52H, com mais de 300 fotos. Mesmo que nenhuma destas seja nas Lajes, duvido que se considere a localização da foto vantagem suficiente para a aceitar na Wikipédia em Português ao abrigo da doutrina de fair use.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Compreendo. Mais uma vez, muito obrigado amigo. Luís Angelo "Tuga1143 22:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:UNstamp3015066-FotW(02998.jpeg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:UNstamp3015066-FotW(02998.jpeg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:UNstamp3015066-FotW(02998.jpeg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

JuTa 19:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

File:PendienteChe.jpg

File:PendienteChe.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

The Photographer (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2015 (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!
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） ∙ +/−

Jarekt (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Jarekt (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tuvalkin. You have new messages at JotaCartas's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Views_of_Torre_de_Belém

Category discussion warning

Views of Torre de Belém 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 ∙ +/−

JotaCartas (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

metacat by name

File:The Royal Oak pub sign.jpg

Hi Tuvalkin. IMO categories like Category:Things named after oaks are metacategories, because they must have only subcats and not files. This is the reason because I put in the template {{metacat|name}}. So I think that your rollback of Category:Things named after oaks is wrong. Best regards, DenghiùComm (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A good way to decide whether a category is a meta category is indeed to evaluate whether logically it must have only subcats and not files or not. And, say, Category:Things named after oaks could very well be directly populated by individual photos, like this one, not only by categories — therefore, it is not a meta category, nor is any of those "named-after" categories is. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Logos vs. coats of arms

(please keep discussion threads whole)

Hello Tuvalkin, thanks for fixing File:Commons-logo-en.png.

The logo that is shown in the upper left hand corner of every page, seems to be this one:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/static/images/project-logos/commonswiki.png

That is what I noticed in the first place.

I believe this is derived from File:Wiki-commons.png. Is it possible to fix that logo as well?

Regards, --SJ+ 08:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Reframing http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Commons-logo-en.svg/116px-Commons-logo-en.svg.png into 135×155 px and nudging the whole 2 px up should do the trick, but I cannot overwrite File:Wiki-commons.png. Better ask someone at the Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I lowered the protection temporary. You should be able to upload it now. Thanks in advice! --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh... The logo issue seems to be phabricator:T37337? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, HiDPI is one more corporate attack on the free internet. One that’s going to fail, like all others before. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

File:De VNG (pont D. Luís avec tramway) au Porto (N).jpg

I removed Category:Trams on bridges because the file was already in Category:Trams on Dom Luis I bridge, but if you think the first category should be non-diffusible, I'm OK with that. Choess (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right, and I’m an ass! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a beautiful bridge, by the way-thank you for organizing all those photos of it. Choess (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is! I’m having great fun at categorizing all these, and it has been an hounor to be able to deal with Chusseau-Flaviens’ work. I only hope people from outher contries he covered do the same with the (huge!) number of remaining photos not yet loaded from GEH into Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry about it! I'm slowly trying to put the subcategories of Category:Rail transport infrastructure in a bit better order, so I'm shunting a lot of things around with Cat-a-lot and I'm bound to make some mistakes--I just drop a note like this if I see I get reverted.
It's amazing the resolution that can be squeezed out of those nice old glass negatives. I love aerial shots with a lot of detail-could study them for hours. You're in a better position than I am to deal with the Portuguese material, but I'll take a crack at the handful of other Chusseau-Flaviens photos we have. Choess (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Tuvalkin/monobook.css

Hi Tuvalkin, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Tuvalkin/monobook.css. Glad to see you coding in css! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 2 new prettyCss issues — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in css writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. WARNING: unknown-property:speak: line 3 char number 4 - Evidence: speak
  2. WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 14 char number 12 - Evidence: 1px
  3. WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 18 char number 12 - Evidence: 1px

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 21:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC).

Optimizing SVG file

Hi,

I came across your file File:23Flag(Quarterly)YW.svg and I noticed it could be opitmize.

Instead of : 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
	"http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
	width="324" height="216">
<!--
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/vex-f-ic.html
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fotwcols.html
-->
<g stroke="none" fill="#FF0">
	<path d="M 0,0 V 216 H 324 V -216 z" />
	<path fill="#FFF"
		d="M 324,0 V 108 H 0 V 216 H 162 V 0 z" />
	</g>
</svg>

you could more simply write : 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
	"http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="15" height="10">
<!--
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/vex-f-ic.html
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fotwcols.html
-->
<g stroke="none">
	<path fill="#FF0" d="M0,0 V10 H15 V0"/>
	<path fill="#FFF" d="M15,0 V5 H0 V10 H7.5 V0"/>
</g>
</svg>

There is no need to use 324*216 when 15*10 is enough. Since there is no strokes, the « z » is not needed. The V -216 is probably a mistake between absolute and relative paths (it should be v-216 or more simply V0). The spaces after the command letters are not needed too. Put the fill is the group is ok but it seems more clear to me to put it in the path since it's not shared by multiple paths.

I don't what to do the the two links in the comment. Is is really useful?

What do you think?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vigneron, and thanks for taking time to analize this file (see them all in Category:Flags of municipalities of Portugal/generic patterns). Some replies:
  • 324×216 was chosen because these were originally developed for FotW. No need to change as these are vectorial. While 15×10 is surely “enough” (as even 3×2 would be), it would look too small on the file page.
  • The SVG code has some inconsistencies and redundancy because it was done by hand back when I knew almost nothing about SVG and were generated by from a single MSExcel formula fed with arguments for all combinations.
  • The XML comments emmbedded in the files are also due to their original use; those links should also be on the file pages.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Uniformes de Gala PDMU.jpg

May I ask why you added Category:Gay marriage (presumably intending Category:Same-sex marriage) to File:Uniformes de Gala PDMU.jpg? I would simply fix the category name, but the category seems absolutely wrong. Did you have some basis for it that I'm missing? - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You may ask, and I ask myself the same. I indeed did it but on hindsight I have no idea why. Looks like the kind of problematic joke I’d never indulge on. This is not good. I’ll go dig through my other edits around that timestamp to make sure whatever caused this (evil twin, pranked while afk, momentary lapse) didn’t make other similar damage. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll just delete that category on that page then. And, yes, you might want to look into your other edits around that time, because it did have the look of a prank. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion of Deprecated compass arrow BSicons

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

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

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

Useddenim (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ferrostal railbus category

Regarding this edit and your comment in the edit summary: No, I did not "assume everybody else is dumb". I assumed that either (1) it was an unintended, accidental category addition or (2) the person who added the category had failed to indicate what relationship existed between the two subjects. You have shown it is the latter. I did not state that it was an error; I wrote that it "appears" to have been an error, because I did not know – but I wanted you to clarify the situation by adding information, which have now done. So, my edit improved the situation for Wikimedia users. However, having Ferrostal trucks does not make a tram a "Ferrostal railbus", so I believe the category is still not relevant here. Maybe a new Ferrostal category is needed, but I do not have enough interest in this to work on that. – Steve Morgan (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Steve Morgan, certainly a Ferrostal category is needed, to reflect their apport to the “remodelado” project — just like Vossloh Kiepe, Škoda, and Knorr (just added the latter). Not sure about how that needs to expressed in the text of the category page, though. What’s there now could be attacked for lacking sources, etc. Common’s categorization, when seen from a Wikipedia perspective, amounts to “original research” and at every step it must be ultimately confronted with what’s in the several wikipedias’ articles about their subject, not what’s in it's page text. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:54, 17 August 2015 (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!
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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

Yours sincerely, JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 22:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Rotated images

  • Good!
  • Bad…
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Fotos de Lisboa de 1957

Olá Tuvalkin,
espero que estejas bem. Recentemente, a biblioteca da ETH de Zurique publicou muitas fotos baixo de Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0. Entre outras, também algumas centenas de Lisboa e de Portugal em geral. Já subi uma duzena dessas aos Commons, encontrá-las aqui. Simplesmente, como és Lisboeta ou pelo menos sabes mais de Lisboa do que eu ;-) , queria perguntar se me podes ajudar em categorizar as fotos. Obrigado. Saludos, --Jcornelius (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Excelente, e muito obrigado! Já comecei — venham mais! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Subi mais umas. --Jcornelius (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear license reviewer

If you use the helper scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.

Hi Tuvalkin, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 23:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome and thanks for volunteering! :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Much appreciated for the apologies. While I haven't figured out a logical explanation behind that reaction I certainly don't have any need to know about your "context" for it. Let's move on and make useful contributions to this project, whatever those are. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted content

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

Hello Tuvalkin/Archive 4, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Alcorhome.jpg

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hedwig in Washington, I understand that the above is boilerplate, but what now? The same minute you posted it, saying that this image will be deleted and asking (supposedly?) for some input on my part, you also did delete it. Now it is redlinked and you and your fellow admins can see it but and I cannot. Want me to do anything? I have no idea what this image is about, and I dout that I really uploaded it: Maybe I uploaded and improved version, a crop, anything like that?
Feel free to skip this kind of warnings in the future, though, as they serve no purpose. Or, conversely, if my input is in any way necessary, make a DR instead.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Argh, you got this message because you did the last upload (a small crop). By the way: You tagged the file for deletion yourself. Don't get too mad, pretty please. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Not mad at all, of course! Did I file the speedy DR myself?, heh, I didn’t remember. Sorry about that! These warnings could surely be a bit less punitive, and the redlink file pages could contain a bit more of info, though… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request

Your really did not need to start a deletion nomination for File:Casablanca Tramway.jpg but, as you later did, just add the proper source page and author and as you also did added a {{Flickrreview}} template which triggered the bot review and passed it without any more human intervention. you should try to avoid the deletion nominations if you can resolve the issues in an easier way. we are all volunteers ao reducing the workload is at all possible is a great help. Right now the human review process is out of hand, so when you have enough experience you may want to become a reviewer. They are useful for unclear and unresolvable issues. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep I know, and I have no excuse — I’m already a reviewer! And it was as a reviewer that I spotted this image. (Funnily enough, there were 2 photos of Casablanca trams, this one was okay, the other was a copyvio.) I’ll be more careful in the future. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment　←コメントをありがとうございます

If it's good,please also see this page once.　←trans.cute007←もしよろしければこちらも一度ご覧になってください。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusamura N (talk • contribs) 2015-09-25T16:51:50‎ (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!
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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Rudolph Buch (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Cannot type space

Thank you very much for your comment. So is it a gadget bug or FF bug? Well actually I tested that in Chrome and same problem, so I would say its a problbem of the gadget. I havent got troubles with that before. Just recently aprox. from summer time.--Juandev (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it is a bug of one of the gadgets. As I noticed it only happens when you try to use Cat-a-lot after you used Gallery in the same page, without refresh. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness.

Because i applicate your work here on commons :-). Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Category:Number 2572 on vehicles

Category:Number 2572 on vehicles 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 category, 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.

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

Rcbutcher (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified_locations_in_Northern_Africa

Category discussion warning

Unidentified locations in Northern Africa 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 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Themightyquill, if you really want this discussed, please create the necessary entry properly, as instructed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It was red just now… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem. It's slow to show up as blue for me too, even once the page has been created. I'm not sure why. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/179788705

Hi Tuvalkin. Your edit caused an error. --Leyo 14:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops!, yep, missing "1=". Meanwhile, Aschroet nudged it right, thankfully. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
That fix was a bit minimalistic. Thanks for your cleanup. BTW: Please compare the image linked in the description with the one here on Commons. --Leyo 15:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You mean this photo showing a different train at the same spot? What about it? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand the Portuguese text now. --Leyo 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Batch upload request - Fortepan.hu

Hi, I added your request to Commons:Batch uploading main page.--RomanM82 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, thank you. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Electric Tramway in Mandalay

Thank you for the nice photographs in en:Electric Tramway in Mandalay. I hope, I wasn't overzeleous in creating this article. If so, please overwrite it or expand. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I did nothing worth thanks, just an infinitesimal bit of curation over User:Fæ’s herculean work that keeps adding uniquely interesting material to Commons — itself based on Internet Archive’s hosting; thank also the volonteers who scanned this bound volume and the library who initiated/allowed the scan work. Your article looks great, just needing some typo fixing. I have no knowledge of Mandalay trams (othar than what I learned while cropping and categorizing these images) and English is not my native language, so I wont be expanding the article — but I’m sure someone will soon! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

VP comments

Please be aware of note after this censorship, note the edit comment made in particular. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I see now that also Zhuyifei1999 sided with Colin’s closing of the thread. Interesting. Oh well, some of us remind me of the androids of Silverberg’s Tower of Glass. As for the latter fellow, no surprises there — he’s gearing up to run for South Park Elementary mascot… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Trams in Lisbon

Olá Tuvalkin, se não te importares, o que eu for encontrando de eléctricos nestas fotos que ainda não estejam classificados eu vou metendo aqui - Category:Trams in Lisbon, e depois tu quando puderes colocas nas categorias certas, ok? Abraço, -- Darwin Ahoy! 09:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Força, vai mandando que eu trato deles. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

your comment stalking this discussion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jameslwoodward#my_response_to_your_post_on_my_talk_page

You said: "(talk page stalker) No, you are wrong: The suspicion of unauthentic authorship claim that may lead to the deletion of an image uploaded to Commons should the same image be found elsewhere online only applies for those whose uploading date to Commons is later than that of the other instances of it elsewhere online. So, if you published your work elsewhere, you should provide a proof of authorship thereon, or thru COM:OTRS. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)"

hey great. apparently no one checked the upload dates in this case, as far as i know, but that wasn't what i said james was wrong about anyway. He is wrong for not removing my work on my request, basicially claiming ownership over my work because i granted a CC license when i uploaded. Maybe within the letter of the law, but still wrong. So what are you talking about anyway? actually never mind, just keep it to yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulisawoof (talk • contribs) 2015-12-11 01:44:14‎ (UTC)

Unless you're younger than, say, eight — in which case all these poorly punctuated, unsigned, technically challenged, goalpost-moving, erraticly misargumented rants are mildly amusing and prone to disappear as you grow up —, you really should take a break in your writing and argueing to inform yourself properly, first, then, assuming good faith and losing the me-against-the-world attitude, try to tackle the matter at hand. Now knowing the case, I don’t doubt photos you legitimately uploaded were wrongly deleted, as the process is not fool-proof. But if that’s the case, they can be undeleted. It is in your hands to make it happen, though — a benevolent admin (which I am neither) could help and speedy up the process, but if you decide to go on being obnoxious, it will not happen, as Wikimedia Commons work is, also for admins, unpaid and done for pleasure, not to sustain unnecessary grief. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Incomprehensible things

Hello.In this file:

  1. Why the "Image-reviewer" I do not review the files himself?
  2. Is there a technical thing is called "1,7°"?!I use "Microsoft Office Picture Manager" and There are no "Minute and second of arc"

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempting a comprehensible reply:
  1. Indeed image reviewers should not review their own uploads. If you disagree with that go ahead and propose a change of policy, but there’s nothing I can (or want to) do about it.
  2. Please note that 1,7° (international notation for the decimal separator) = 1.7° (American-English notation for the decimal separator) = 1°42′ (one degree and forty three minutes of arc). I determined that number by measuring those items of the photograph that should be horizontal or vertical and rotated it according to that value using Photoshop 7.0, which allows rotation accuracy in steps of tenths of degrees (six minutes of arc).
If you rotated the image by a different value due not to a different interpretation of its parallax and tilt but indeed due to the use of less accurate software, then your version has less merit than mine and your upload should be reverted.
You’re welcome. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Locais desconhecidos em Lisboa

Olá Tuvalkin, desculpa a pergunta, mas achas realmente que algum dia alguém saberá onde é que isto fica, ou que há algum interesse em saber isso? :D Será que estas imagens não deviam ser removidas dali para não atravancarem a categoria, e facilitarem a identificação do que pode realmente ser identificado? Abraço, -- Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Pois é, tens razão. Sabemos que é em Lisboa por via do que autor afiança, está bem, e não é preciso mais nada. Dei um jeito nas categorias dessa foto. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Obrigado. :) -- Darwin Ahoy! 21:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ajuda

Olá Tuvalkin. Contacto-te porque preciso que uses a tua conta Flickr para perguntar ao user Ze Caetano, aonde é que ele tirou a maioria das fotos do album Inner Portugal que foram posteriormente copiadas para aqui. Tenho tentado categorizar algumas imagens na categoria Unidentified subjects in Portugal, mas estas são impossiveis sem a ajuda dele, não há absolutamente nada que nos ajude a encontrar uma localização.--Threeohsix (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Vou tentar. Obrigado pelo aviso. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Any feedback?--Threeohsix (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Eliminação arbitrarias de imagens

olá Tuvalkin... tive muitos arquivos carregados deletados, muitos com autorização pelos autores enviadas via e-mail pra a Wiki, alguns com confirmação do pessoal do Commons desde 2009... abaixo alguns dos arquivo com confirmação que foram deletados...

ao que parece meus carregamentos está sobre suspeita, como se eu tivesse desde 2007 carregando imagens com perfis falsos, não teria esse trabalho, bastaria dizer que eram minhas essas imagens e estaria tudo OK... a grande maioria dos carregamentos que fiz foram de imagens de amigos ferreofãs, deve conhecer o Brasil e sabe do tamanho do Pais e da dificuldade em se viajar. Participo de inúmeros grupo de discussão sobre ferrovia e tenho muitos amigos que sempre colaborar com fotos... seria possível me ajudar e interceder para a recuperação das fotos? Meloaraujo (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Caro Melo Araújo, como colega ferrofã e com toda a simpatia pela sua posição, só lhe posso dizer que carregar no Commons fotos de autoria de outrém sem proveniência confirmada é um desvio às regras aqui e não há desculpas para nele incorrer: Os formulários de carregamento e edição estão pejados de avisos sobre este assunto. Rogo-lhe que limite os seus carregamentos às suas próprias fotografias (ou a material em domínio público, geralmente antigo) e que encorage os nossos colegas, autores dessas outras fotos a licenciá-las eles mesmos e/ou a, por seu intermeédio, esclarecerem as necessárias autorizações via OTRS. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Entretanto constatei que, pelo menos nas fotos acima (fantásticas, aliás!), o processo foi resolvido a contento, por via de OTRS. Excelente, vamos continuar. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

EasyJet

Hello. Do you know what the registration of this plane is? if you don't do you know and date and flight number, I can get it that way too :): https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:I_made_it_to_Portugal_after_all!_%E2%98%BA_(Sharon_Hahn_Darlin).jpg&oldid=prev&diff=182559082 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKY661 (talk • contribs) 2015-12-23; 00:02:41‎ (UTC)

I have no idea. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
No probs. Thank you :) --MKY661 (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if you need anything

Greetings Tuvalkin: Do please let me know if you need anything? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just have an excellent 2016, Ellin, and keep up the good work. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Tranvía Santa Cruz.jpg

At File talk:Tranvía Santa Cruz.jpg (as I gather from the deletion summary), User:Koppchen argues that «The Photographer died more then 70 years ago!». Did you verify this claim? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I added the url where you can see his date of birth and death in the deletion reason. Regards. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...

Could you please be more careful? Specifically, in this comment, you seem to be asserting that I dishonestly changed the title of the section, in an attempt to undermine the strengths of your argument. This diff, to the original comment in the thread, shows I did no such thing. Haven't you mocked other people, for having less than 100 percent perfect, reading comprehension? Yet your mistake here -- doesn't it illustrate less than 100 % comprehension on your part?

I don't participate in discussions to prove everyone else is "stupid", to use your term. When I participate in discussions I try to do my best to read the comments made by other people closely enough that I can recognize when they made a valid point, even if they could have expressed themselves more clearly. I make a particular effort to understand the people who I think disagree with me, because I remember I am subject to normal human frailty, and I am not always right.

I am going to remind you that you too are subject to normal human frailty, and you too will not always be right. Let me be frank, it seems to me your comments in this discussion show an unhelpful appearance of trying to show how clever and important you are, at the cost of failing to acknowledge, or perhaps even recognize, the valid points made by other people.

If you plan to continue to participate on any wikimedia projects could you please be more careful, in general, to remember that you too are subject to normal human frailty, and that it remains in the best interests of the project if we all do our best to understand our correspondents. Some of our correspondents may be "stupid", to use your term, and yet may also be correct. Others may be very intelligent people for whom English is not their mother tongue. And yet others may be intelligent people, who made their comments at the end of a long day, explaining why what they wrote could have been written more clearly.

I repeat, our goal here should not be on making sure our side of an argument "wins". It should be to make sure our consensus-based decision making arrives at the best solution -- even if that requires us abandoning our original position. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (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!
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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

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!
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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Kwasura and Latin to Cyrillic renamings

Greetings! And what would be the place do discuss such problems? --Kwasura (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are two separate matters that need specific discussions:
  1. Filenames:
  2. Category names: Commons_talk:Categories
But certainly not here, on my talk page.
I’d like to advice you caution and patience before starting the discussion you purport to launch (and which you tried already at some unsuited venues): Make sure you understand the current practices, guidelines, and policies, and the the rationales behind them, before you boldly suggest changes. I suggest caution not only because revisiting setlled matters (those which you would yourself acknoledge as such in hindsight) would waste everybody’s time and damage your reputation, but, because I actually agree with some of the points you raised (as much as I can tell for now) and I don’t want to see those topics tainted with unsuitable argumentation which may draw “fence-sitters” away in further discussions and decisions.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like none of the administrators really want to talk about it. Leaves me completely unaware of wherever I did anything wrong or not. --Kwasura (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You’re saying that none of the administrators wants to enlighten you, five hours after this? Okay, go troll elsewhere, please. I have better things to do (as you do too), and, unlike those administrators, I’m not even supposed to put up with your antics. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I may be naive and asking too many questions, sorry about it, but I truly think that wrongdoing or trolling is so not cool. Anyway, I took enough of you precious time, won't take anymore. Sincerely --Kwasura (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Image authorship

File:Anth's moods.jpg, I fixed it. That was a funny day when we took those shots for the unique purpose of posting on my user page to illustrate my moods lol. He will be happy to see it if further used :) Thanks Anthere (talk)

Thank you! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

KarnakTempleFreize

Olá amigo Tuvalkin. Obrigado por me avisar. Atenciosamente,

(Hola amigo Tuvalkin. Gracias por avisarme. Un cordial saludo,) JMCC1 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

~

Fotos ferroviárias

Tuvalkin, Poderia ajudar, o Darwin que estava fazendo as verificações está off,... algumas atualizações informadas pelos autores das fotos ao Commons, algumas com copias para mim tbm. Os arquivos abaixo tiveram autorização enviada, conforme os autores me repassaram...

File:GE 15T 502 ABPF DSC03190.JPG - Bruno Sanches ABPPF - 10/01 o site, com autorização - http://abpfsuldeminas.com/ge-15-ton/
File:GE 15T 502 ABPF DSC01961.JPG - Bruno Sanches ABPPF - 10/01 o site, com autorização - http://abpfsuldeminas.com/ge-15-ton/
File:EMD DDM45 822 EFVM.jpg - Deyler Tose Marchezini- 19/11 ou pouco posterior, enviou via outlook, se for o caso peço que reenvie.
File:GE BB40-9W 1165 EFVM.jpg - Deyler Tose Marchezini - 19/11 ou pouco posterior, enviou via outlook, se for o caso peço que reenvie.
File:GE U23C RFFSA 3920.jpg - Alexandre Almeida - 10/11 ou pouco posterior
File:GE V8 6381 FEPASA.jpg - Ricardo Frontera - 21/01 pelo mesmo e-mail que ele enviou no passado muitas outras autorizações, este arquivo ( File:GE U20C 3846 FERROBAN.jpg ) teve o ORTS implantado.
File:GE V8 6382 FEPASA.jpg - Ricardo Frontera - 21/01 pelo mesmo e-mail que ele enviou no passado muitas outras autorizações, este arquivo ( File:GE U20C 3846 FERROBAN.jpg ) teve o ORTS implantado.
Fiquei meio ausente, ferias, voltei e carreguei algumas fotos, estas minhas ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Meloaraujo&ilshowall=1 ), ainda tem mais alguma coisa para carregar, mas falta tempo...
tem mais esta File:WBB BOX 320 CP - Via.JPG, esta foto é da mesma serie desta File:WBB_BOX_320_CP.JPG, tem mais de 70 anos... e o fotografo é desconhecido, possivelmente um funcionário da CPEF..

Meloaraujo (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ó Meloaraujo, eu tenho muito gosto em ajudar, mas tem de compreender que eu aqui tenho exatmenet o mesmo nível que vc.: Não sou administrador, nem secretário do OTRS. Portanto aquilo que eu fizer (pedidos no COM:UDEL, participar em discussões de DR, etc.) é apenas aquilo que vc não quis fazer. Veja lá bem isso. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Tuvalkin, ok obrigado. Já fiz pedido de UDEL, mas simplesmente foram deletadas as imagens, algumas com o autorização desde de 2009. Meloaraujo (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

EMail address in the title of a Wikimedia-Commons-picture

Hallo Tuvalkin,

the artist Shoshannah Brombacher who painted the picture "Deus sive Natura": File:Shoshannah Brombacher Spinoza Deus Sive Natura, pastel lr.jpg

asked me to put her Email address in the title of her picture, when I use it in my article in the German Wikipedia: W:Deus sive Natura.

Can I do this or is it forbidden by Wikimedia/Wikipedia-rules?

Thank you for your answer.

--Diego de Tenerife (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If you mean in the filename, I’d say better not — it could have been included in the filename upon upload, maybe, but now changing it would be against COM:FR. If you mean to include her e-mail address in the file page description, sure, go ahead. (But on the other hand you may want to ask an admin: my opinion doesn’t weight much.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
-- Thank you for your answer.
Yes, I meant to include the e-mail address of the artist in the file page description. Can you recommend me , name me, an ADMIN to whom I could put this question? I don't know any admin.
Vejo que você fala tb português.
Tudo de bom
--Diego de Tenerife (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Ó Diego, se é para isso, vá avante: Edite a página em causa e acrescente o tal e-mail, mais nada: Onde está
|author=[[User:Shoshannah Brombacher|Shoshannah Brombacher]]
ponha
|author=[[User:Shoshannah Brombacher|Shoshannah Brombacher]] <{{NonSpamEmail|parte antes da arroba|parte depois da arroba}}>
E já está! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
---Obrigado:
Seria:
[[File:Shoshannah Brombacher Spinoza Deus Sive Natura, pastel lr.jpg|mini|{{Kapitälchen|Deus sive Natura}} – Spinozas berühmte Formel malerisch interpretiert von [[User:Shoshannah Brombacher|Shoshannah Brombacher]] <{{NonSpamEmail|shoshbm|gmail.com}}>]]
Mas o problema é que uma pessoa tem apagado o endereço de e-mail no imagem no meu articulo w:de:Deus sive Natura – dizendo que não foi autorizado a colocar um endereço de e-mail no título de uma imagem.
I don't want an "edit war" - qué fazer?
Ein Gruß aus Deutschland!
--Diego de Tenerife (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, entendo agora. Quer adicionar o endereço de e-mail da pintora na legenda de uma imagem da pintura utilizada num artigo da Wikipédia em alemão cujo tema central nem é a pintura ou a sua autora… Bom, isto aqui é o Commons e eu não tenho nada a haver com a Wikipédia em alemão, mas quem lhe disse isso está cheio de razão: Nesse tipo de uso da imagem, até o nome seria excessivo, talvez — o endereço de e-mail de alguém, quando se justifica numa enciclopédia, deverá apenas aparecer no artigo sobre essa pessoa. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Outra questão, mais importante e referente aqui ao Commons: A imagem File:Shoshannah Brombacher Spinoza Deus Sive Natura, pastel lr.jpg, uma vez que já tinha sido anteriormente exposta on line necessita de confirmação da identidade de quem faz o licenciamento aqui no Commons, para que seja considerado válido. Assim, Shoshannah Brombacher deverá sguir o processo descrito em COM:OTRS ou, mais simples, acrescentar à página no Academia.EDU uma indicação clara que a pintura foi licenciada pela autora nos termos da licença {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Replied. See talk page. NoNews! 01:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Armazém do Cacém

  • Por mim, não há qualquer problema. Eu próprio não tinha a certeza absoluta de que o novo nome era melhor - afinal, como aprendi entretanto, cá no Commons há uma regra que diz que descrições são na descrição. O que faz todo o sentido, diga-se de passagem. E assim com um nome mais curto sempre é menos um bom bocado de código na Wikipédia, ehehe. Cumprimentos, -- Ajpvalente (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Cara-de-costas.jpg

File:Cara-de-costas.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Taivo (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

BSicon numbers

Take a look at Liverpool Street on the Great Eastern Main Line RDT. Anything look wrong to you? Useddenim (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes:   (num1ra) doesn’t match well with   (num2la) and   (num3ra), and the latter two don’t match each other exactly either. The whole thing needs to be overhauled. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC) and 20:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I wasn’t sure if it was just the rendering on my computer, or not. Also, any thoughts about my latest renaming proposal? Useddenim (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:BSicon/Colors#Set "o"

Your thoughts? Useddenim (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Useddenim. Yesterday I read again what I wrote back then and I have not a single comma to add or remove:
  • We don’t need yet another green;
  • where were these guys when we were discussing colors for months?;
  • wp:de is apparengly filled with smug ignorants (back then they crowed anthing other than red and blue is non-de nonsence, remember?).
In the end this will probably go ahead which, however, will cause no disruption at all in the BSicon universe, because it is now (thanks to people like you, Vunz, YSSL and a couple whippersnappers — non of them from wp:de) sorted out and clear. (You may quote me, if you like.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

File:TinasheFeb2012 (rotated&filled).jpg

File:TinasheFeb2012 (rotated&filled).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Amitie 10g (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Re:Tinashe

Oops, I noticied that the file is actually non-free just after creating the DR (in conjunction of the several invalid Speedy tags by Stas1995 ‎). --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A couple of tips:
  • Keep threads at one single location — that is, do not come to my talk page to answer what I wrote in yours.
  • You didnt get my point: What both you and the closing admin should have mentiojned in the DR was merely a link to File:TinasheFeb2012.jpg — that would have be more clear.
And, by the way, the original copyvio claim was insubstantiated. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tuvalkin/Archive_4&oldid=358738176"