User talk:Makele-90

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Makele-90!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}} For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

TUSC token 2e4d5da61ec4f8ce3a97f4bd7c4e4a7e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Saxon

Moi! Huomasin, että olit lisännyt tälläisen kuvan. Itse valitettavasti missasin tuon keikan, kun ei sieltä päälavan edestä päässyt eteen eikä taakse. Miten ukot veti? —kallerna™ 17:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yllätyin että vanhat papat veti noin helvetin kovan keikan. Voisin jopa ehkä sanoa että soittivat ja kuulostivat paremmalta kuin Metallica sinä iltana :-)

Tiedätkö muuten saako fiwikiin päivän kuvan automaattisesti kuten täällä saa {{Potd|width=300|float=left|lang=fi}} -komennolla ?

Ja viellä toinen kysymys, miten saan suurennettua gallerian kuvia ja laitettua niitä enemmän vierekkäin ? --Makele-90 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dääm, se olis ollut hieno nähdä. Metallicasta en niin kovasti innostunut, porukkaa oli aivan liikaa. Ei tuolla mallineella saa sitä tietääkseni toimimaan suomiwikissä, koska itse malline on täällä Commonsissa. MiPellä oli sillä puolella tuohon muistaakseni joku viritys, kannattaa katsoa hänen käyttäjäsivultaan. Gallerian kuvia saa suurennettua ihan lisäämällä galleria-komentoon pikselimäärän, eli esim. näin: <gallery widths="145px">. —kallerna™ 10:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

Jos File:Finland expressways.png bugittaa (ja korjasin jo useimmat kadetykseni, kts. fi:Keskustelu:Moottoritie#Kartta) niin kerro mita pitaisi korjata tai korjaa se itse, sen sijaan etta vedat herneen nenaan ja yritat kokonaan poistaa sen... Jpatokal (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

En ole ”vetänyt herneitä nenään” ja laitoin kuvan poistoon koska se sisälsi väärää tietoa. Hyvä että olet korjannut sen, nyt pitäisi olla lähes kaikki kunnossa (ainakin viellä Tampereen seudulta puuttu jotain pätkiä). --Makele-90 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Koordinaatit

Hei! Kiitos hienoista kuvista ja koordinaattien lisäämisestä niihin. Huomaathan kuitenkin, että {{Location}}-malline on tarkoitettu nimenomaan kameran (ei kuvauskohteen) sijainnin ilmoittamiseen. Kuvauskohteen sijainnin voi ilmoittaa {{Object location}}-mallineella. --Apalsola ^{t • c} 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kiitos vinkistä! --Makele-90 (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Karvetti Naantali, 29.9.07 (1).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 10:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lopeta

--Juhko (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

File:2010 FIFA World Cup logo.svg

File:2010 FIFA World Cup logo.svg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Miho (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Saksalainen purjevene Saaristomerellä, 2.7.2009..JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Piuhanjoki, Raisionlahti, Raisio, 10.4.2010 (3).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality --Simonizer 17:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Viialanjärvi, Naantali, 25.4.2010 (2).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments It's how I see the world of Jäniksen vuosi. But I'm still looking for the hare on your picture ;)--Jebulon 17:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Huhkon kartano, Raisio, 18.4.2010 (2).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Raisionjoki, Raisio, 5.4.2010 (7).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Acceptable quality for QI. Good composition. Encyclopedic image value. -- MJJR 20:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Raisionjoki, Raisio, 5.4.2010 (18).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leskenlehti, Luolala, Naantali, 24.4.2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 09:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Näkötorni, Borgberg, Houtskari, 21.7.2007.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 14:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaitaisten silta, Taivassalo, 22.10 (2).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Köylijärvi, Naantali, 15.5.2010 (2).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good image. --Cayambe 21:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MS Oasis of the Seas, Turku, 26.7.2009.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Timalitorni, Halikonlahti, Salo, 7.8.07.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --George Chernilevsky 13:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aarne Peltosen muistomerkki, Naantali, 24.4.2010 (2).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good IMO--Jebulon 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kärsämäen eritasoliittymä, Turun ohikulkutie (kantatie 40), Turku, 11.7.2010 (2).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good light and perspective study. QI to me.--Jebulon 17:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You're now a filemover

Hi Makele-90, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one.
• Please do not tag redirects as {{Speedy}}. Other projects, like InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
• For guideline when to rename a file, please see Commons:File renaming and Commons:File naming.

Geagea (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Juvankoski, Paimionjoki, Tarvasjoki, 18.9.2009 (2).JPG

Warning your signature does not appear in your image in QI --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --Makele-90 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Goose

Hello Makele-90, you've reviewed my goose-picture at Quality images candidates. Link to the nomination. I have fixed the slight overexposure, could you have a look, please. Best regards   &#x95; Richard • [®] • 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment and support the image. --Makele-90 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Naantalin_kirkon_hautausmaan_sankarihautojen_muistomerkki,_Naantali,_2.10.2010..JPG

File:Naantalin_kirkon_hautausmaan_sankarihautojen_muistomerkki,_Naantali,_2.10.2010..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!

Apalsola ^{t • c} 16:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Kuvien luokittelusta

Hei! Kiitokset lukuisista hyvistä kuvista ja niiden luokittelusta! Yleensä kannattaa kuitenkin välttää kovin pienten, etenkin yhden kuvan luokkien luomista. Ts. jos luokkaan sopivia kuvia on vain yksi, kannattaa mieluummin jättää kyseinen luokka luomatta ja sen sijaan luokitella yksittäinen kuva yhtä tasoa ylemmäksi. (Eli esim. niin kauan kuin Suopellon koulusta on vain yksi kuva, se olisi ehkä mieluummin kannattanut luokitella suoraan luokkaan Category:Schools in Naantali ilman omaa Category:Suopelto School.) Sitten, jos samaan aihepiiriin liittyviä kuvia lisätään enemmän, luokka kannattaa toki luoda. (Jo luotuja yhden kuvan luokkia ei kuitenkaan kannata poistaa.) Mikään ehdoton sääntö tämä yhden kuvan luokkien kielto ei käsittääkseni ole (ja joskus yhden kuvan luokat voivat olla hyvinkin perusteltuja), mutta keskimäärin yhden kuvan luokat pikemminkin hankaloittavat kuvien löytymistä.

Toinen asia koskee luokittelun logiikkaa. Ainakin minä olen ymmärtänyt Commonsin (Wikipedoiden käytännöt poikkeavat tästä joiltain osin) luokitteluperiaatteet niin, että alaluokan pitäisi olla aina pääluokan osajoukko siten, että kaikki alaluokkaan kuuluvat kuvat tai luokat kuuluvat loogisesti myös pääluokkaan. Käytännössä tämä tarkoittaa esim. sitä, että luokkaa Category:National road 40 (Finland) ei voi lisätä luokkaan Category:Roads in Naantali, koska tie ei sijaitse kokonaan Naantalissa. (Sitten, jos Naantalissa otettuja kantatie 40 -kuvia on paljon, voidaan toki luoda molempien em. luokkien alaluokka Category:National road 40 in Naantali, mutta yhden tai kahdenkaan kuvan tapauksessa en vielä tätä suosittele.) Joitain poikkeuksia toki on: Esim. Tornionjoen ylittävät rajasillat varmasti kannattaa luokitella sekä Suomen että Ruotsin siltaluokkiin, vaikka silta ei sijaitse kokonaan kummankaan valtion alueella. Vastaavasti kahden kunnan alueella sijaitsevien siltojen luokat voi (ja kannattaakin) sijoittaa molempien kuntien luokkiin. Poikkeukset kuitenkin koskevat käsittääkseni vain hyvin rajattuja, "pistemäisiä" kohteita, kuten juuri siltoja. Samoin esim. Category:Helsinki-Vantaa Airport on luokan Category:Transport in Helsinki alaluokka, vaikkei lentoasema Helsingin rajojen sisäpuolella sijaitsekaan. (Mutta jos olisi olemassa luokka Category:Airports in Helsinki, sinne Helsinki-Vantaa ei minusta kuuluisi.) ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Moi. Olen luonut noita (tällä hetkellä) yhden kuvan luokkia, koska luokittelen lataamiani kuvia ensimmäisestä latauksesta alkaen ja on helpompi luoda nyt samalla luokat, kuin myöhemmin tehdä samaa työtä uudelleen. Kaikkiin noihin yhden tai muutaman kuvan luokkiin tulee lisää kuvia, kunhan ensin saan nykyisten kuvieni luokkittelun ja tiedot korjattua.

Ymmärrän tuon luokittelurakenteen, mutta joskus kun luokittelee paljon liukuhihnalta, niin luokat voivat mennä jo vähän epäloogisiksi. Nyt Kt 40 -luokassa on Category:Road transport in Turku, joten vastaavat muidenkin kuntien luokat sopinevat?

Toinen luokittelu mikä on aiheuttanut päänvaivaa on Category:Archipelago Sea, jonka jaottelu alaluokkiin ei tietääkseni perustu mihinkään viralliseen jakoon. Lisäksi siellä on Category:Turku Archipelago, joka käsittää nykyisen luokkakuvauksen mukaan vain Turun kaupungin alueen. Ennen kuin tuo kirjoitettiin ymmärsin sen tarkoittavan Turun saaristoa, joka käsittää aika suuren alueen Saaristomerestä, ja siksi siellä on nyt muitakin kuvia kuin määritelmässä sanotaan. Tuo on kuitenkin helppo korjata, koska kuvia on siellä aika vähän. Onko mielekästä jakaa esimerkiksi Category:Northern Archipelago Sea pienempiin kuntakohtaisiin luokkiin, kuten nyt Turun kohdalla on tehty? Olen myös luonut Category:Airisto, joka on suuri ja tunnettu merenselkä Saaristomerellä. Tälläinen luokittelu lienee ok? –Makele-90 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jos kuvia on lähiaikoina tulossa lisää, niin toki luokkien luominen on silloin ok. Tosin kannattaa olla suhteellisen varma siitä, että kuvat todella tulee tallennettua Commonsiin. (Nimimerkillä itsellä varmaan kymmeniä ellei satoja kuvia, jotka pitäisi tänne tallentaa, kun saisi vain aikaiseksi... ;-)

Kt 40:stä. Melkein olisin sitä mieltä, että sitä ei pitäisi lisätä kokonaisuudessaan mihinkään Naantali-luokkaan. Mieluummin sitten vaikka poistetaan kt 40 Turku-luokastakin (ja lisätään vastaavasti yksittäiset Turku-aiheiset kuvat Turku-luokkaan). Kt 40:n näkökulmasta Turun ja Naantalin välillä on kuitenkin (kaupunkien koon lisäksi) se ero, että kt 40 on kuitenkin nimenomaan Turun ohikulkutie. Kyse on siis vähän sama tilanne kuin Helsinki-Vantaan lentoaseman tapauksessa. Jos kokonaisia tieluokkia lisätään kuntaluokkiin, johtaa se pian pahaan yliluokitteluun. Voidaan esimerkiksi miettiä, miten kävisi, jos Category:National road 4 (Finland) lisättäisiin kaikkien Nelostien varrella olevien kuntien luokkiin. Kantatie 40:kin kulkee kuitenkin jo kuuden kunnan alueella.

Samoin, jos lähestytään asiaa Commonsista kuvia etsivän käyttäjän näkökulmasta. Jos hän selaa esim. luokkaa Category:Naantali, haluaa hän todennäköisesti löytää nimenomaan Naantalissa otettuja kuvia. Jos kaikki jotenkin Naantalliin liittyvät luokat luokitellaan Naantali-luokan alle, voi se pahimmillaan johtaa siitä, että iso osa Naantali-luokan alla olevista kuvista onkin otettu jossain aivan muualla. Tällöin Naantalissa otettujen kuvien löytäminen voi vaikeutua.

Tuo saariston luokittelu on ongelmallista. Sama tilannehan on oikeastaan aina, kun joitain luonnonalueita (järvet, joet, meret, vuoristot ym.) yritetään sovittaa kulta-, maakunta- tai valtioluokkiin. Luonnonalueilla nimittäin tuppaa olemaan ikävä taipumus olla noudattamatta ihmisen piirtämiä rajoja. ;-) Sama koskee myös esim. kansallispuistoja, vaikka niiden rajat ihmisen piirtämiä ovatkin.

Kuntakohtaiset Northern Archipelago Sea in X tai X Archipelago -luokat voisivat olla hyvä ratkaisu. (Toki edelleenkään liian pieniä luokkia ei kannata luoda eli luokkiin pitää myös riittää kuvia.) Ongelma tosin voi olla siinä, että esim. saaristossa otetuista kuvista ei aina ilmene, minkä kunnan alueella kuva on otettu (välttämättä kuvaaja ei ole edes tätä tiennyt tai ainakaan ei ole pitänyt asiaa merkittävänä), ja jälkikäteen asiaa voi olla hyvin hankala selvittää.

Tietenkään luokittelusta ei pidä tehdä liian suurta ongelmaa. Koko systeemin tarkoitushan on vain jäsennellä kuvat jotenkin järkeviksi kokonaisuuksiksi ja auttaa käyttäjiä niiden löytämisessä. Kun tämän tavoitteen pitää mielessä, pärjää varmasti melko pitkälle. (Ja pääosin olet siis tehnyt ainakin minun mielestäni hyvää työtä.)

Kokonaan toinen kysymyshän on nykyisen luokittelujärjestelmän järkevyydestä ylipäätään. Monethan ovat sitä mieltä, että asiasanatyyppinen järjestelmä olisi parempi. Eli kuviin vain lisättäisiin asiasanoja, mutta asiasanoilla ei olisi mitään keskinäistä hierarkiaa. (Esim. Naantalissa kantatie 40:llä otettuun kuvaan voisi lisätä ainakin englanninkieliset asiasanat "Road", "Highway", "Highway 40", "Naantali", "Finland Proper", "Finland" ja "Europe".) Lisäksi tarvittaisiin hakusysteemi, jolla voitaisiin hakea asiasanojen yhdistelmiä. (Eli esim. Naantalissa otettuja tiekuvia voisi hakea hakusanalla "Road Naantali". Nykyisessä järjestelmässsä kai ei ole mahdollista hakea kahden tai useamman luokan leikkausta eli kuvia jotka kuuluisivat kaikkiin luokkiin. Siksi itse luokittelujärjestelmän pitää sitten olla hierarkinen. (Tämä ei missään tapauksessa ole kannanotto asiasanajärjestelmän puolesta. – Nykyisessäkin järjestelmässä on kyllä puolensa ja asiasanajärjestelmässä ongelmansa.) ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hirvijoki, Lemu, Mynämäki, 10.4.2010 (2).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ugly, but good quality. --Mattbuck 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maskunjoki tulvii, Masku, 4.4.2010 (3).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Info This is so called ice dam. Makele-90 01:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Ugly but decent quality. Mattbuck 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Finnsailor, Naantalin satama, Naantali, 13.3.2010 (2).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Minor CA on the light, but generally good. Makes me wish it would snow here, this dull and dreary winter is depressing me. --Mattbuck 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pitkospuut Kuhankuonolla, Kurjenrahka, Pöytyä, 14.9.2010..JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I wouldn't mind seeing some sharpening, but good enough. --Mattbuck 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

European Herring Gull

Are you sure about File:European Herring Gull.jpg? If so, would you mind moving the image to the proper name? Best regards, --ArildV (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, ArildV. Yes, I am 100 percent sure about it. L. argentatus has completely different plumage, habitus and 1cy beak is black. I moved it.–Makele-90 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very mutch for your help!--ArildV (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CROP. Corvus monedula, naakka, Naantalin hautausmaa, Naantali, 8.11.2011..jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI, useful and very nice :) --PierreSelim 07:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cygnus olor 2 cy, kyhmyjoutsen 2kv, Kalevanlahti, Ruona, Naantali, 9.2.2012 (8).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sorry, the color space was not for WEB and probably color on your monitor was displayed not correctly (the file is updated). --Aleks G 22:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC  Comment It's ok, thanks. --Makele-90 06:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:CROP. Corvus monedula, naakka, Naantalin hautausmaa, Naantali, 8.11.2011..jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CROP. Corvus monedula, naakka, Naantalin hautausmaa, Naantali, 8.11.2011..jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your quality image candidate review

Hi! I'm Calandrella, the creator of the quality image candidate featuring a ringed bird which you reviewed the other day. On QIC, you asked for information about the man in the background, and I've now given additional information on QIC. Thanks for taking interest in my picture! :-) Greetings, Calandrella (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your images

Hello,

I tried to improve them. Best regards, Yann (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 

Ok, thanks. I think that with that "noob" camera I couldn't make better quality in those conditions. –Makele-90 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kuusiston lahti Kaarina 7.3.08 (1).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Vassil 10:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lietsalan koulu, Naantali, 11.4 (3).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Vassil 18:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kalkkikaivos, Parainen, 22.7.07.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Vassil 18:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seututie 192 ylittää Puttanjoen, Vehmaa, 10.10.2010 (4).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 05:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kettu (Vulpes vulpes), Inttilä, Luonnonmaa, Naantali, 13.5.2012 (6).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Needs probably a crop, but good for QI as it is, IMO.--Jebulon 23:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ducks

Hello Makele, and thanks for this, you are right, my mistake. I will right now double check if it applies to others Poco a poco (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that by accident on QI. I understand that was a mistake, because one picture really was a Aythya marila. –Makele-90 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Kuva

Discussion moved to User talk:Itapirkanmaa. Siirretty sivulle jossa keskutelu aloitettu. –Makele-90 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

File:Puerto de Helsinki, Finlandia, 2012-08-14, DD 02.JPG

Hi, since you don't edit so often the QIC page, just to let you know that I have uploaded a new version with reduced exposure. Since this kind of fixes are really straightforward I think that a comment should be enough. Thanks and regards, Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's better now. –Makele-90 (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Azipod, early design with retrofitted fin..jpg

Hi Makele!

I have restored the image but this is not final. You have said that you can bring a valid permission for a free use for this file. Please send this permission per Email to our OTRS-team: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for OTRS (I think), because it is in public domain as they have stated on their site. –Makele-90 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Then it is easier: Ask there for someone who speaks suomi in order to license review this file. --High Contrast (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I left a message. –Makele-90 (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. Let's wait. --High Contrast (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

QI reviews

Hi, I noticed you declined File:Hong Kong Victoria Harbour 02.jpg at QIC due to "spots in the sky". I'm not arguing that the image is QI currently, but if something is easily fixable, it's generally best for the first reviewer to just comment on it and not decline. Then if it's not fixed within say 5 days, decline it. That way you give the uploader some time to fix it without dragging it in to discussion where it could languish for weeks. Thanks! -mattbuck (Talk) 08:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but just saying if it is not QI, then it is not QI. Somebody else could promote this picture and ignore the "spots in the sky". –Makele-90 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I find people rarely touch images which have others' comments on. But if they do, just change it to discuss saying it's not currently QI. If it's something like that, you'll likely have 90% agreeing with you. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Gyps fulvus subcategories

Hi Makele-90 - all of the images in each category are of captive birds; it is very unlikely too that anyone would be able to get a head-only shot of a wild specimen. But more importantly, natural and captive specimens should not be mixed in the same category; the first division in the species category should be between the natural and the unnatural. Better that the two subcategories should be renamed to clarify their position as subcats of captive birds; I'll do so shortly - MPF (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about that categorization. Do you have a link to the discussion? It's not unlikely at all to take a head-only shot of a wild specimen. We have thousands of photos taken in the wild. –Makele-90 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to get close enough to a wild Gyps fulvus to get a head shot, at least not without €5k+ of professional camera equipment and considerable fieldcraft care - people able to produce professional quality images with this sort of expertise are not going to donate free images to Commons and thereby nullify their income potential. This may of course change in the future, but that does not nullify the important point I made that captive specimens - with their un-natural backgrounds, and frequently dubious identity - should not be put in the same category as known wild specimens of high scientific value. By comparison, head-shots is a very trivial reason to separate photos into separate categories, and not really necessary at all. - MPF (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now you have added category:Gyps fulvus (juvenile) to Category:Gyps fulvus (captive). If they are captive then category name should be for example Category:Gyps fulvus in captive (juvenile). Now the name of the category is Gyps fulvus (juvenile), so then it should be include all of the files about juvenile Gyps fulvus, not only captured ones. And also Category:Gyps fulvus heads etc. Only in captive??? –Makele-90 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have renamed the categories to reflect their current content (with the head-and-half-body images of wild birds removed to the main species category). - MPF (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now there are plenty of files that have categorized wrong, photos that have taken in the wild, but you have added them to some of the captivity categorys.

For example this one File:Otter in Southwold.jpg, how do you know this is captive? Because is it head-only shot??? –Makele-90 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Southwold is the site of the former Otter Trust captive breeding centre (recently discontinued). The colour of the animal (light brown) also strongly suggests it is not the (very dark brown) UK native subspecies Lutra lutra lutra (the Otter Trust also bred other subspecies and species of otters), and finally, it is also easy to tell from the habitat, that it is not in natural conditions. To be honest, this image should really be placed in Category:Unidentified Lutrinae‎ until its identity can be better verified. - MPF (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Addenum: it looks very much like their photo labelled "Asian Otter" (Aonyx cinerea?) - MPF (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Makele-90⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Makele-90,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Panoramic P28.8L, Kamasa Drag Race Week, Alastaro, 30.6.2012..JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 18:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kawasaki Z750, Kamasa Drag Race Week, Alastaro, 30.6.2012 (6).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI --Livioandronico2013 13:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eurocopter EC135 P2 (OH-HMV) FinnHEMS FH20, Kamasa Drag Race Week, Alastaro, 30.6.2012 (4).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 05:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kamasa Drag Race Week, Alastaro, 30.6.2012 (79).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good enough. Mattbuck 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kirjastosilta, Turku, 8.12.2013 (32).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kirjastosilta, Aurajoki ja Turun tuomiokirkko, kuvattuna Itäiseltä Rantakadulta, Turku, 8.12.2013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Valokuvaaja, Kamasa Drag Race Week, Alastaro, 30.6.2012.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Cccefalon 18:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sparrowhawk photo

Hi Makele - I removed it from the juvenile Sturnus vulgaris category, as that isn't a conspicuous component of the photo: would you use the image to illustrate a juvenile Sturnus vulgaris? It is enough for it to be in the dead Sturnus vulgaris category. - MPF (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, MPF. Yes I would. Juvenile starlings are more likely hunted by birds of prey than the old starlings. Category:Sturnus vulgaris (juvenile) and Category:Sturnus vulgaris (dead) are subcategories of Category:Sturnus vulgaris. So they are at the same level and do not exclude each other. As Commons:Categories, this is not a over-categorization. This image shows a dead juvenile Sturnus vulgaris, so it should be in the following categories: Category:Sturnus vulgaris (juvenile) and Category:Sturnus vulgaris (dead). And by the way, there is no mention on the description that the bird is juvenile. So if someone (not a bird expert) goes to the category:Sturnus vulgaris (dead) and he/she wants to find a picture of a dead juvenile starling, it might be difficult because they are not categorized accurately. –Makele-90 (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not over-categorisation (within the definitions of Commons categorisation rules) but it is excessive categorisation; one could just as easily add say, Category:Lawns in France, or a category for the species of grass in the photo, but they would equally be out of relevant context. I really can't see that this would be a useful photo for adding at e.g. species:Sturnus vulgaris, it just does not show this species as the main subject of the photo. As to "there is no mention on the description that the bird is juvenile" - that is easily added; I have done so for the English part (I don't know the correct terms in French and German): though note that it is no longer a full juvenile, but was starting moult to adult (the black feathers). As an aside, I changed the "mld"-format to individual language tags, as the mld was not working properly; I could only see German on the image page, even though my user language is set to English. - MPF (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to use this photo: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CROP._Corvus_monedula,_naakka,_Naantalin_hautausmaa,_Naantali,_8.11.2011..jpg"> CROP. Corvus monedula [...]</a>

I want to publish it on my blog here: <a href="BoundlessPerceptions.com">BoundlessPerceptions.com</a>

Is it ok to give you credit for your work in the Metadata alone? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.149.126 (talk) 11:48, 08 October 2015 (UTC)

ticket:2015040710016266

Hi,

I you have some spare time, could you please deal with this ticket? It is quite old and it is written in the Finish language. Natuur12 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done –Makele-90 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Olettaen että tämä on sama juttu, muistathan päivittää OTRS-tiedon tiedostoon: File:Pauli vahtera wikipedia.jpg --Pitke (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Used one of your images

This image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LNG-s%C3%A4ili%C3%B6t,_MS_Viking_Grace,_Pernon_telakka,_Turku,_5.1.2013_(2).JPG

Used here (with attribution at bottom of page): http://www.imarest.org/events-courses/events-conferences/lecture-meeting-propulsion-system-for-large-lng-dual-fuel-ferries

Thanks for uploading. : )

 Danielstoker (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Makele-90,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Meilahti_Hospital

Category:Meilahti_Hospital 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!

Htm (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomin kuva

Nomin kuva on ns pressikuva eli se on vapaasti kopioitavissa ja käytettävissä. Eikös tämmöisen käyttäminen ole myös Wikipediassa ok? Ariako (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Kuva ei ole vapaasti käytettävissä, vaan tekijänoikeuden alainen. Pressikuvat on tarkoitettu tuotteen markkinointiin, esimerkiksi lehdissä tai muualla mediassa. Wikipediaan tai Commonsiin kuvaa ei voi tallentaa, koska sitä ei ole julkaistu tänne sopivalla lisensillä eikä se ole puplic domainissa. Olit myös tiedostosivulla merkinnyt itsesi tekijäksi ja kuvan cc-by-sa-4.0-lisensillä, joka ei pidä paikkansa. –Makele-90 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

No sitten on tapahtunut virhe epähuomiossa. Laitan tuonne nyt tilalle kuva johon minulla 100% oikeudet kun ne kuvaaltaja (anna äärelä) aikanaan ostin Ariako

Käytkö hyväksymässä niin saadaan myös kuva Nomin tietoihin? Kiitos. Ariako

Tiedoston File:Saara Aalto 1 250px.jpg OTRS-lupa

Hei! Siirsin suomenkielisestä Wikipediasta kuvan fi:Tiedosto:Saara aalto 1.jpg 250px.jpg Commonsiin nimelle File:Saara Aalto 1 250px.jpg, mutta OTRS-malline herjaa tikettinumerosta, vaikka se on sama kuin suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa. Suomenkielisen Wikipedian kuvasivun historian perusteella sinä olet hoitanut tuon OTRS-luvan, joten pystytkö tarkistamaan ja korjaamaan tuon ongelman? Kiitos jo etukäteen. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Korjasin sen Commonsiin sopivaksi. –Makele-90 (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Kuva Velkuan koulusta

Tervehdys, saako Velkuan koulun kuvaa käyttää Velkuan koulun historiikkitekstin yhteydessä, kun mainitaan kuvan ottajan nimi? Historiikki ei ole kaupallinen tuote ja palvelee kaikkia asiasta kiinnostuneita. Teettäjä on Naantalin kaupunki. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.141.111.162 (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hei, kuvaa voi käyttää lisenssiehtojen mukaisesti. Kuvan yhteydessä mainittava kuvaajan nimi. –Makele-90 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Tiedostosta Iissalo Pyhäjärvi.jpg

Moi. Pienenä vinkkinä voin mainita että edellämainittu kuva ei ole otettu Varsinais-Suomesta vaan Satakunnasta. ;) Lähinnä sen tiimoilta tiedottelin kun olit liittänyt sen osaksi Varsinais-Suomi -aiheista kuvasivuasi. Santtu37 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Moi. Sivuillani on kuusi ylläpitoluokkaa, jota ylläpitää User:OgreBot. Yksi niistä luetteloi kaikki uudet kuvat Varsinais-Suomesta. Kuvasi joutui sinne koska se oli luokassa Category:Pyhäjärvi Lake (Säkylä), joka on luokan Category:Lakes of Finland Proper alaluokka. –Makele-90 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Maanpään kartano, Rymättylä, piirustuksia Irja Sahlberg 1942.jpg

Copyright status: File:Maanpään kartano, Rymättylä, piirustuksia Irja Sahlberg 1942.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maanpään kartano, Rymättylä, piirustuksia Irja Sahlberg 1942.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Ulkokuva, Maanpään kartano, Rymättylä, 1942.jpg
• File:Ulkokuva, Maanpään kartano, Rymättylä, 1942 (2).jpg

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 00:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ladatun kuvan poistaminen

Hei

Voisitko poistaa lataamani kuvan: Kuunteluväsymys.png? Aguilus (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

..Huomasin että et ole ollut kovin aktiivinen muokkaaja viime aikoina.. pyydän jotakuta toista poistamaan kuvan. --Aguilus (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)