User talk:Paul2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Paul2!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

File tagging File:Gaykrant.jpg[edit]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  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:Gaykrant.jpg. 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:Gaykrant.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Jespinos (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camerierisegreti.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!

Rosenzweig τ 19:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:OUTTV-logo.png 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.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Vera (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:OUTTV-logo.png 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!

Steinsplitter (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed[edit]

22:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Mvs-logo.png 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!

Basvb (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The holy Roman Empire[edit]

I don't think this is correct

I think the map you give for the HRR in 1550 is not correct. First of all -regarding earlier maps- until 1528 the regions west of the Scheldt were still French fiefs, not HRR fiefs. Charles V's father even did homage to the French king for them, but Charles' guardian refused to have him do the same. The result was the ladies' war (the French king also had a female regent) between the Habsburgs and the French. The French lost and consented in 1528 to release Flanders and Artesia from French suzerainty provided the other 15 Netherlands would also be taken out of the framework of the German empire at some point. Charles -once emperor- kept word and in 1548/49 a Pragmatic Sanction created the Burgundian Kreis. This included a separate joint parliament for all the Netherlands that was no longer beholden to the diet of the HRR. The only tie that remained is that the Netherlands had to pay a yearly sum of money to the person of the emperor (i.e. Charles himself who wanted some more money out of the deal). Note that this was not an obligation to the HRR, but to the person of the emperor. Later Phillip II (the lord of the Netherlands) may have done homage to his cousins in Austria (who were emperors) for the Netherlands, I don't know that for sure, but I am pretty sure the -quite legal- States-General of the Netherlands have never ratified that. This means that even for what is now Belgium you cannot say that is was part of the HRR in say 1600, because the States-General did not consent in that until 1648, when the legal mess was finally resolved. So, strictly speaking Flanders and Artesia only became part of the HRR in 1648, although even then I am not sure the French ever agreed with that.

In other words: in 1550 the Netherlands were not part of the HRR anymore and it was an HRR emperor who had quite legally granted them their independence. The fact that later in the 80/30 year wars claims to the contrary were made or that even later than that the Bismarcks and Hitlers loved this sort of map to base their further territorial demands on does not change what happened in the 16th century. Depicting the Netherlands as part of the HRR between 1548 and 1648 is certainly not NPOV. Jcwf (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. First of all, it's always difficult to create maps of the Holy Roman Empire, as it was never the kind of unified territorial nation state we nowadays often think of. Indeed the Netherlands were granted far-reaching independency by Charles V, but still some ties with the empire were left, so therefore I consider the map correct. First because the Netherlands were grouped into the Burgundian Kreits, which is an administrative region of the empire, not an entity that was seen as a sovereign territory. Second, the Netherlands not only had to pay a yearly sum, but in return the empire had to protect them (this was agreed upon in the Augsburg Transaction of 1548). Third, full sovereignty for the northern Netherlands was recognized in 1648, while the southern Netherlands remained under the Austrian crown and were considered part of the empire until they were annexed by France around 1795. This third aspect would have been a strange anomaly when the Netherlands would already gained full indepedency by 1548. All this is not a black or white issue, these things developed very gradually, and apparently also didn't bother people very much in those days. So therefore we should assume the Netherlands part of the empire until the formal changes were made, which was in 1648 and 1796. Greetings, Paul2 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Levensrecht1940-01.png 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!

Buidhe (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe 't Mandje, Gay bars en café's[edit]

Beste Paul, er bestaat een "Category:Cafés in Amsterdam" op Commons. Ik wilde eigenlijk de categorie voor Cafe 't Mandje daaraan toevoegen. Echter, ik zag ook dat er categorieën zijn voor Amsterdamse gay bars en lesbian bars. Nu kan ik mezelf geen expert noemen op het gebied van de Amsterdam gay scene, dus hoop ik dat jij het antwoord op mijn vraagweetː kun je alle Amsterdamse gay bars en lesbian bars omschrijven als café's, of alleen die met "café" in de naam? Groetjes,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dank voor je bericht. In principe zijn alle zaken die in "gay bars" en "lesbian bars" staan cafés, voor de dansgelegenheden is er namelijk een aparte categorie "gay clubs". Beide categorien kan je dus onder Cafés in Amsterdam plaatsen (of is er ook een categorie Bars in Amsterdam? Eerder was er nogal verwarring over die twee termen). Groeten, Paul2 (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Gay nightclubs in Toronto 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!


82.135.82.50 10:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]