User talk:Skeezix1000/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Could you please explain more fully...

Could you please explain why you placed a tag on Image:Gooderham4.jpg asking for it to be deleted as an exact duplicate -- when it is not an exact duplicate? Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. In retrospect, I can't remember a good reason to keep both, so I have asked for administrative deletion of the other one.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Island

Thanks for fixing my mis-categorization. People must have been wondering, "when did they add that huge sewage plant?"  ;-) Fletcher6 (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello Skeezix1000, thanks fro your help with deletion requests for some fishy files :-) A little hint: for obvious copyvios you could use Template:Copyvio, that's a bit easier to handle – for you and for admins. Cheers --:bdk: 22:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leafs v Red Wings 1942.jpg

Why did you add the "US-1923" tag back to this image? It can't have been published before 1923, since it is from 1942. I was going to delete this image from Commons and move it to Wikipedia, since it appears to only be PD in Canada. Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto cat that observes naming convention

[Discussion moved to J Jmesserly talk page.] -J JMesserly (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-response on my talk page.-J JMesserly (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Margaret Atwood at demonstration.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Margaret Atwood at demonstration.jpg 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 ∙ +/−

-YUL89YYZ (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic images of -> Toronto in the xxxxS

Discussion centralized to User_talk:J_JMesserly#Toronto_cats.

I also have a response to your query there regarding moshist. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected categories should not be categorised themselves, otherwise they attract bot categorisation

Hello, please note that redirected categories should not be categorised themselves, otherwise they attract bot categorisation. --Foroa (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

other cleanups

If there are large numbers of other cleanups, let me know. Specify the pattern from and to, and the sets of pages it should be applied to and I will be happy to implement. By the way, that wasn't just a few hundred pages- I think the count is came out closer to two thousand. -J JMesserly (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakhva1926.jpg

Skeezix1000, this image do not meet basic requirements of none of the 3 licenses you provided:

  • {{PD-Polish}} - no source where it was published in Poland
  • {{PD-Polishsymbol}} - it is not "official document, material, sign or symbol" of Poland
  • {{PD-1923}} - it was not published "before January 1, 1923" since the photo was taken in 1926

I think {{Anonymous-EU}} is the only license that will allow this image to stay in Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're right about {{PD-1923}} - that was my fault. I'd been uploading pre-1923 images most of the weekend, and the automaton in me took over. Out of habit, I guess, and I wasn't paying close enough attention. As for {{PD-Polishsymbol}}, how is this not an official document? Is there a ruling or an interpretation that states images do not fall within the scope of document for the purposes of this tag? If there is, then you're probably right. --skeezix1000 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion of this in Template_talk:PD-Polishsymbol&section=4 and for more details you might have to dive into Polish Wiki. Generally this license is used for documents, banknotes, stamps, logos of military or government organizations and other "official" graphics. It is not analogous to {{PD-USGov}} where the threshold is that the image was created by government employee - it has to be an "official". That is why Category:PD Polish Symbol has no (or very few) photographs. --Jarekt (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are few photographs Category:PD Polish Symbol is somewhat self-fufiling -- if it is has initially been used for non-photographs, then editors tend to believe it is not for photographs, despite the state of the copyright law. In fact, the first discussion you pointed me to actually supports the notion that a photograph from a public agency would qualify as a document under the scope of this template. My Polish is far too weak to dive into the discussions over at the Polish wiki, however, so I will have to defer to you on this one. --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La Baie Chemin du Plateau .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 nice composition and colours --Mbdortmund 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC) + Sehr schön Fingalo 19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I would have put the barn on the other side of the composition. --Eusebius 16:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biens culturels du Québec

Bonjour. Catégorie:Bien culturel du Québec est la liste des monuments classés « officiellement » par le gouvernement du Québec, (voir Bien culturel du Québec et Liste des biens culturels du Québec dans Wikipédia). C’est une liste limitée et particulière, par exemple le château Frontenac à Québec n’est pas un « bien culturel » du Québec. L’ « Arrondissement historique du Vieux-Québec » est reconnu par l’UNESCO, il englobe le Vieux-Québec. Je vous demande de rétablir les catégories que j’avais créées qui sont plus précises. Cordialement.--gilbertus (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je propose de mettre tous les biens culturels classés du Québec ensemble. Veuillez créer la catégorie : «Category:Provincially designated heritage properties in Québec» Avec mes remerciements.--gilbertus (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image d'accueil

Bonjour Skeezix. Pour les images de Québec, j’ai pris l’exemple sur Category:Marseille et Category:Nice. Je trouve cela plus agréable et invitant pour le visiteur à découvrir la ville. Est-ce interdit par Commons? Cordialement.--gilbertus (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec City Zoo

Bonjour. Quebec City Zoo is closed in 2006. ??? Que-faire?--gilbertus (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, pouvez-vous traduire en anglais : English : Le jardin zoologique de Québec est fermé depuis 2006. Une partie de ses terrains est ouverte au public sous le nom de Parc des Moulins. Merci! Bye.--gilbertus (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haute ville

Hello. In Category:Vieux-Québec, Category:Lower Town, Old Quebec City, please, nouvelle traduction pour : «Category:haute ville, Old Quebec City » Merci! --gilbertus (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Danforth

You're right, and I've updated the map. The problem is that the standard northern border of Riverdale is Danforth Ave, but Greektown also unquestionably covers the southern side of The Danforth. The various maps of Toronto neighbourhoods that exist don't allow for overlapping neighbourhoods, so ones like the Star and the city place everything south of Danforth in only Riverdale. Thus it is hard to reference the south side of the street being Greektown. The BIA clearly covers both sides, so that can serve as a concrete reference for the new map. - SimonP (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War

Category:Canada at war does not seem to be the traditional naming scheme for wars involving a country, we could alternatively use "Military battles involving Canada", "Wars in which Canada fought", "Canadian military actions" or anything else. But "Canada at War" is kitsch, like something you'd name a television programme. Sherurcij (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wars of Canada is better than Canada at War, certainly, though I still wouldn't think it ideal since we include such things as the Fenian Raids, but it's perhaps inescapable. Sherurcij (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category mix up

Thanks for the fix, I caught it after you'd made it. The reason it was such a blatantly incorrect cat is I tend to upload photos back-to-back by hitting "back" on the browser and changing info. I forgot to change the cat, and as you can see the previous photo was in en:Fargo, North Dakota. Just thought you'd be curious... :-) --Bobak (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis, freedom of panorama

Thanks for adding these two mentions to my Toronto City Hall image, I'll definitely use those phrases/templates on future uploads. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:American President Nixon address joint session of the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa 1972.JPG

You ask "How does a foreign visit by the then U.S. President not relate to the United States in the 1970s?". Fair enough, it certainly relates to it, but the image does not actually show any of the United States in the 1970s. It shows a US politician in Canada. The other photos in the US by decade categories show things within the USA. So this one seems not to fit. It can't be subcategorized as being in a particular part of the United States, since it is not in the United States at all. Possibly something like a "foreign relations of the United States during [decade]" might be of interest in starting? Other thoughts? Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traduction

Bonjour. Pouvez-vous me traduire : Logos des compagnies du Québec, Logos des compagnies de Québec (ville) Merci. --gilbertus (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Frank Gehry.jpg

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

-Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia Affair images

As one of our local experts on image policy related to Canada, could you have a look at the debate over the Somalia Affair at Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/24? Some of the issues are Canada based, but a lot also depends on Somali copyright law, or lack thereof, which is something I know very little about. - SimonP (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Explosion

Hello, I'm simply not sure why you removed this category.  — Mike.lifeguard 23:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really.

I saw your edit summary[1]. When I created the categories, I referred to this because categories in English should be based on the standard from English speaking world.--Caspian blue 15:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. However, when I created categories, I referred to the US related categories that looked to me well organized in English and have a lot of contents compared to categories of other countries. The former categories still exists, so South Korean's is not the only one on the categorization. More problem is that Category:South_Korea_by_decade has more than 500 images, so if I follow your suggestion, where to ask an assistance to relocate them? The relocating job is beyond what I can do with just bare hand. I'm looking forward to your another kind answer. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I should've raised the matter to some editors having a special tool for relocation. I will seek the matter to the place per your suggestion. Thanks.--Caspian blue 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To rename a category, please use {{Move}}. For a large category, please do not add the tag without obtaining a consensus. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
huh?--skeezix1000 (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello. Thanks for fixing up some of those categories. I am still feeling my way around Commons and obviously have a bit to learn! Cheers, --Jcart1534 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traduction

Bonjour. Je connais peu l’anglais. Voici ma traduction partielle. « Cette image est disponible à la Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec avec la référence xyz.» Salutations. --gilbertus (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:UofT buildings

I didn't realize that it was already a subcat. My thought process was that "University of Toronto buildings" should be in both a "University of Toronto" category and a "buildings" category. I somewhat question whether "University of Toronto buildings" should even exist. Both it and Category:University of Toronto are filled with images of buildings and not much else. - SimonP (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murphy Gamble 1940.jpg

File:Murphy Gamble 1940.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--feydey (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian Volunteer Monument.jpg

Thanks for fixing the category on that I never thought to look for a specific one. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 06:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RRQ Picture

You said here that it cannot be found on the web. It is a picture I have taken with my personal camera. I don't see how I can provide a evidence, I am the creator of this picture. There is no copyright and I didn't ask for it to be removed. I have the right to upload personal picture. Patriote17 Talk 19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you said this picture can easily be found on the web. But I uploaded it on the RRQ website, it is personal work. Don't say you have no prove that I have taken it. Because you have no prove someone else taken it, show me the copyright before deleting it. I am the author of this picture. Thank you. Patriote17 Talk 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacques Plante of the Montreal Canadiens hockey team.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Jacques Plante of the Montreal Canadiens hockey team.jpg 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 ∙ +/−

----Padraic 14:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jurek Durczak 1 King West (2).jpg

File:Jurek Durczak 1 King West (2).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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--Leoboudv (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McCrae House

Hey;

i noticed you revised the category for the john mccrae house in guelph ( will be adding more photos).

one thing though; there is potentially more than one "McCrae House", even if you limit it to just this particular McCrae. he was born in guelph, but moved around after that...

would you consider revising it again to the full title of the guelph museum, tpo avoid potential future ambiguities? 

:)

Lx 121 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toronto Towers (1).jpg

Why do you keep reverting my categorisation as if it were vandalism? That photo is very poor quality, only 30 kilobytes; it is for example totally inadequate for identification of the gull. Where is the "Size of this preview:" note? All I see is "No higher resolution available", which makes it useless. If it were 300 kilobytes, it still wouldn't be very good. You won't find many jpg photos below 500 KB that are good; really good ones are 2-3 megabytes or more. If you disagree with a legitimate edit, you explain why, you don't treat a legitimate edit as though it were vandalism to be reverted with a disparaging remark about the editor in the edit summary. - MPF (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! - MPF (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical figures

O.K. Thanks! --gilbertus (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traduction

Bonjour. Veuillez me traduire en anglais :

  • Category:Sports d’hiver au Québec.
  • Category:Loisir d’hiver au Québec
  • Category:Loisir d’été au Québec
  • Category:Déneigement au Québec
  • Category:L’hiver dans l’art au Canada
  • Category:L’hiver dans l’art au Québec

Merci! Salutations. --gilbertus (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour les traductions
  1. Matériel et équipement d'hiver au Québec - (quel genre de matériel?)...
  2. Matériel de déneigement au Québec - (souffleuse, camion, sableuse)

--gilbertus (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoir. Il n’est pas indispensable d’écrire : Français au début d’un titre. Le titre est en français, exemple : Hiver à Montréal. Je préfère écrire en gros caractère pour faciliter la recherche et le classement pour les unilingues français (comme moi Clin. Bonne soirée. Cordialement. --gilbertus (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Skeezix1000. J’ai besoin de traductions pour classer les logos :

  • Category:Logos du Gouvernement du Québec
  • Category:Logos municipaux (Quebec)
  • Category:Logos des sports et des loisirs (Quebec)
  • Category:Logos commerciaux et privés (Quebec)

Merci! --gilbertus (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionism in Canada

"See also" links are for related categories that aren't child or parent categories. Discuss first before reverting. I have been doing this a long time on the Commons. I consolidated the discussion here. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already responded to the substantive issues. A subcat is not what should be linked in see also links. This is a ridiculous, near-xenophobic, statement:
The entire "abolitionism in Canada" category is not relevant to the U.S. experience
The see also template is not what most people use. I have years of experience. If experience is not helpful, then what is? And if you don't want the discussion consolidated here, then we can move the discussion to the category talk page.
I went ahead and copied the discussion to Category talk:Abolitionism in Canada. I will reply there. Please do not continue this particular discussion further on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noted your last comments. Strike my "near-xenophobic" comment. Let us please continue discussion at Category talk:Abolitionism in Canada. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hazel images

I have regrettably deleted two of yours that were from the LAC. I think most users who have dealt with LAC image are aware of the misleading description pages. In this case, there's simply no evidence of publication -- crown copyright expires fifty years after publication. Assuming it was published before 1959, it'd be still copyrighted in the US in 1996, and consequently, today, even though it's PD in Canada. This stuff is so annoying -- and I thought Hurricane Hazel article at en.wiki had plenty of good historical pictures... :( Maxim(talk) 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:N2 Juno Beach - langrune-sur-mer.jpg

Hello,

May I know why you removed Category:Langrune-sur-Mer and added Category:Juno Beach Centre instead ? According to Its website, the Juno Beach Centre is supposed to be located in Courseulles-sur-Mer, not in Langrune-sur-Mer. So my guess is that this picture is taken in a different place than the Juno Beach Centre. Teofilo (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. So I tagged the picture with {{rename|Juno Beach Centre Courseulles-sur-Mer, 2005-07-09 02.jpg so that the file has a correct file name. Teofilo (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:VR Standard - Nunavut 2009.jpg

The user is pretty new, did not identify himself as either of the authors that are listed on the image. That is why I am asking him (or her) to send the images via OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto/Sorel Etrog

Hi Skeezix, spring is in the air and I wonder whether you remember the wish to make some images from sculpture in Toronto and from Sorel Etrog's sculptures in particular. I would be very grateful as Toronto seems to be the place fot that work. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sk. I have integrated your images in the Sorel Etrog article on nl.wiki : here. Thanks again. Greetings.--Gerardus (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for more info on Sorel Etrog I saw the works of Kosso Eloul (and Maryon Kantaroff). Interesting sculptor, only stone sculptures were known to me (and here on Commons). Now I saw his work in Canada and I'm working on an article for nl.wikipedia. Is it possible, when visiting the Al Green Park for a second time, to make some more images from the others, like Eloul?? Unfortunately all images on Flickr are All rights reserved, so not for me/use on Wikimedia Commons. Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Canada-stamp

Hi. I see you've already reverted twice edits made on File:Newfoundland.jpg, without providing any reason. Please don't do that. The reason for adding the category is so that it can be removed from the license template. It's always a bad idea to mix license information with topic categories, because it makes it impossible to refine the categorization afterwards. For example, if someone would create Category:Stamps of Newfoundland, 1928, it would be difficult to move that file from Category:Stamps of Canada, 1928 into that new category, because it is hidden away in a template. So please don't revert those edits again; you can start a discussion on the template talk page if you have good reasons to oppose these changes, but reverting individual bot edits is not helpful. –Tryphon☂ 12:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD-old-100 + PD-Canada

Hi. I just a few moments ago replaced all other PD licensing in category:Photographs by William Notman with {{PD-old-100}}. I noticed that you are now re-adding the {{PD-Canada}} license to these images. Is that necessary? PD-old-100 most definitely covers Canada as well, so I don't see a need for it? I'm sorry to have created extra work for you, if having them both is indeed necessary. Also, had you contacted me, I would have gladly taken care of fixing this by myself. —Quibik (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptures by Henk Visch

Hello Skeezix, I saw that you introduced Category:Sculptures by Henk Visch in repect of the image in cat:Man with two hats, ottawa. I made a redirect as the category:Henk Visch already has the function to show the sculptures by him. Unfortunately more wikipedians are looking for that, may I say, burocratic way of categorizing: two categories in stead of one. Forgive me my action, but a future with the work of thousands of sculptors categorized by detour is not very attractive. Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Public Library

If you haven't seen it already, the TPL is posting images from its special collection on Flickr. I imagine this will have some great historic Toronto photos. --Padraic 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto summit protests

Hey, I just wanted to say those summit images are top notch (though seeing it is outrageous). I'd just like to know which dates those images were taken. Were they all taken on the respective upload dates or different dates? 99.245.94.233 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I didn't take the photos - I downloaded them from Flickr. The metadata at the bottom of each image description page should usually tell you the date, assuming it is correct. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion request you may be interested in

Howdy. You may be interested in the deletion request here.--Rockfang (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment at that discussion, and the note you had put on the category talk page. I would like to document this argument more thoroughly, with the aim of putting it in a template and adding to each image (or to the front of the category). I would also be interested to know whether a similar argument would apply for the CWGC memorials (the CWGC originated as the Imperial War Graves Commission, set up by charter following the Imperial War Conference of 1917, and is an intergovernmental organisation, so I'm not entirely sure what the argument about FoP would be there - though it is clear the architects were employed by the IWGC to do the work they did on the British Empire memorials and cemeteries in France and Belgium). I can provide lots of details for this if needed, but was hoping to find some help in getting a coherent argument together to put in a template and add to CWGC categories. Would you be able to help? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. I'm away on holidays now, but will be back in a couple of weeks and will have time then to focus on the issue. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! Will make a note to drop by in a few weeks, unless I hear from you first (I can be contacted here or on en-wikipedia). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto sculpture

Hi Skeezix, beautiful sculptures by Sorel and Kantaroff. What a treasure in Toronto! Hopefully I'm not the only person enjoying it. I will select a few ones for nl.wiki. Thanks,--Gerardus (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments and memorials in XXXXXXXXX

I can see how it can work in away but I see no issue in keeping Category:Memorials in Canberra and Category:Monuments in Canberra for an example as we (Australia) strictly use Monuments for monuments and memorials for memorials, we can also have an issue of over crowding Category:Monuments and memorials in XXXXXXXXX with both monuments and memorials. Also I see that the creators of the categories were never told about the discussion. Bidgee (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plaques / Memorial plaques / Memorial tablets

There is no public interest in this topic :( Maybe you answer me? --Kaganer (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category renamed, bot not moving stuff?

You redirected this cat, but it has been a few days and it is still heavily populated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just surprised they have not been moved, I thought bot(s) would do it within 24h? Are they down? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monuments and memorials in the Netherlands

Hello Skeezix, thanks for not forgetting the sculpture images form Toronto. Then your question about the Category:Statues in the Netherlands. Statues are sculptures dedicated to a person from royalty, politics, art, history, etc. When the statue is ment to be a memorial I will add the Category:Memorials as well (only a small percentage is involved). The adding of two categories for a sculpture is normal practice in cases like: sculpture/relief, statue/memorial, fountain/sculpture, memorial/relief etc. So please don't disrupt that practice.

Most important however is the (false) introduction of the Category:Monuments and memorials in ... It was told you last week from Australia. Others keep quiet out of disinterest. I worked 3 years on categorizing sculpture in the broadest sense. I made 40.000 alterations and brought some order in The Netherlands, Germany and partly in other countries like Canada. A weekly activity for many hours. There are in many languages differences between Monuments and Memorials and combining the two in one category is in the Dutch language impossible.

Monument: Oorlogsmonument (war) = sculpture ! (only a small percentage < 1%) and natuurmonument (nature), architectuurmonument (architecture), industrieel monument (factory), rijksmonument (buildings listed by the Dutch state as valuable) and so on and so forth = building or structure ( > 99 %). The last two weeks the Category:Wiki Loves Monuments was started. 7.105 images were uploaded. Added to the thousands already on Commons I can tell you that at least ten thousand images are now categorized as monuments! As Category:Monuments, images were uploaded from houses, houses, houses, historic office buildings, palaces, museums, old factories, farmhouses, estates, windmills, lighttowers etc. Sculptures are of course not involved. I don't know who decided that new categorization, but nobody asked my opinion and I disagree strongly. In the newly created category you will already see the result. Within a few days images which don't belong there are uploaded and chaos is not relieved but revived. I don't know where to protest and I consider to stop my activities in reorganising and cleaning up other peoples mess. A bitter --Gerardus (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked on the 27th Oct. my reasons for preferring Memorials in the Netherlands. The tone of your question showed some reconciliation (I thought) and I gave you an answer the 28th Oct. explaining my concernes. I just noticed that all my actions were undid (for the second time without consulting me) on the 27th. I feel stupid and treated in a very unpolite way. This is how people who are very involved in what's happening on Commons are treated: just doing what you and two or three others "decided" as best for the community. I am even more bitter than a few days ago. This is my last message here. You are the winner, but I'm am not the loser, I am betrayed.--Gerardus (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new Fort Duquesne photo

Thanks a lot my friend! I really appreciate your help on this! You have helped me learn a lot about all the ins and outs about downloads during these past two weeks.--Harfang (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tireless Contributor

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You deserve 10 of these. Your effort and dedication here cannot be doubted, and are certainly not overlooked. Themightyquill (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miami New Times

You might want to drop a line to the good folks at the Miami New Times. They just used your photo of Rob Ford without any attribution of any sort. - Dravecky (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated License

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−

Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:Clock-tower 2001.jpg, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the image correctly? If you are not able to do this, the image will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 13:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NHSC

Hey Skeezix, what's the purpose of Template:NHSC besides displaying your patriotic pride? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else comes to mind, since, as you point out, all the parks Canada logos are copyrighted. =( Maybe something from Category:Beavers in art ? I was actually just curious about the usefulness of the marker - I've never noticed categories marked like that before. Aren't this purpose already served by the categories at the bottom of the page? I hope my question didn't come across badly, I was mostly just confused. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool, as long as there's a precedent. I see now that there's a UNESCO World Heritage template too. I like your new icon choice as well. That looks great. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

people of / people from

I support your move of "People of Vancouver" to "People from Vancouver". Maybe we should make a request for admins to move all the Canadian "People of city x" to "People from city x", as well as the provinces? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding that discussion. I've made comments there. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah.. actually, I didn't realize that commonsdelinker page existed, so it wasn't because of any politeness on my part. =) I suppose if we don't get any opposition over these moves, we can confidently make more direct moves? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for pointing out that I should have nominated for deletion instead of merely tagging as copyvio. May I ask that, in the future, you notify people who are tagging if you have reverted their tag without fixing the underlying issue or filing the proper nomination themselves, because for those of us who are not terribly active on commons (except for the periodic OTRS work) we may not see the change. Thanks. 7 (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Art of Hawaii

I believe Art of Hawaii deserves a separate listing that is not a sub-category of American art. It is not American geographically, and much of it predated a political association with the US. Wmpearl (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cat:toronto

Nope, that was a mistake. I meant to add it to an image - I must have confused my browser's tabs. Thanks for pointing it out. =) Themightyquill (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Category:Steve Nash

My understanding was that Category:People of ___ and Category:People from ___ indicated places of origin, residence or work. In Nash's case, he was born in South Africa, works out of Phoenix and lives in New York City, so I didn't think the "People of British Columbia" cat was appropriate. Now, I understand that he grew up in Victoria, BC and has business interests there, but I just wanted to make it clear that the edit was neither malicious nor careless. --Ytoyoda (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And I didn't realize until reading Commons:Category scheme People that the "People of ____" were meant to be more inclusive than just where people are from. --Ytoyoda (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Duquesne

Harfang, do you have any old emails from Ottulich, where he agrees to freely license the image? The emails can't be ambiguous (such as "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my photos") - Ottulich needs to explicitly agree to publishing his work under a free license - but there is always the chance that you already have something from him. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Skeezix, I do have an e-mail from him. I am not home now, but when I go home, I will send it to you. I did send Ray Ottulich twice the OTRS instructions, and the second time, I filled it out myself, I only needed his signature and for him to send it back to you. What I think is the problem, is yes he gave me permission, but now that he sold the table top model to the Ottawa war museum, he doesn't want to be bothered again. Some people are like, ask me once, but don't ask me again, or don't make it difficult or I lose interest. I said it was a nightware for me because as you are aware of, I did have another picture of Fort Duquesne, actually better than this one I got from him, and you know the hassle I went through in order to get this picture, so as not to lose all the different language wikipedias using it. Now I realize4 the only way is to take it myself and give it for free to wikipedia commons, as I have done with many of my pictures. Sorry if I sounded upset, but besides my work as a sales representative, which is not that easy, I am saddened by the difficulties involved to get one picture. Hope you understand, and I do thank you for the great help that you have been giving me throughout this long and tedious process.--Harfang (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what he sent me along with 3 pictures of Fort Duquesne? mgtbltp@aol.com <mgtbltp@aol.com> 10 octobre 2010 23:30

Dear Jacques,

Yea sure go ahead and use it, here are some other views attached one shows the hornwork added to the fortification, BTY the actual model that the pictures were taken of is now at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.

Ray O

Sent: Sun, Oct 10, 2010 10:23 pm Subject: Your table top model of Fort Duquesne

Dear Ray,

My name is Jacques and I live in Québec City. I am happy to meet you here because I love history, especially that of Canada and the United States. I found a different picture of your table top model on a website in honor of Pontiac, the native Ottawa american who battled the British for 3 years after the French and Canadians had been defeated in the 7 years war. They had received permission to use it from you. I write often about this war in Wikipedia, but I have no picture to show what Fort Duquesne looked liked. Would it be possible to have your permission to use this picture as well, and if so, I would place your name as the source of the picture and the name of your company, so that you could get potential customers out of it. Your permission would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! Jacques--Harfang (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Lick/Pioneer Memorial

Aren't we supposed to avoid slashes in category names? - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Skłodowska-Curie

A pillar of Wikipedia is the truth. The usage "Marie Curie" is a falseness. France among authentic French people had and has a huge number of outstanding persons. Need not steal Poland of Maria Skłodowska-Curie. The most outstanding woman of her own epoch. The all discussion over the nomenclature of the category and the subcategory of concerning Maria Skłodowska-Curie is aimless. Similarly, the vote over files break copyrights: Not important how many user wants to keep, the break of copyrights is decisive. Similarly: Not important how many users wants the further deception. The truth is a truth. Her true name this Maria Skłodowska-Curie. --Starscream (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Johannes Gutenberg on stamps‎

Are You sure? Monument, memorial is statua, plaque... --Starscream (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Historic Sites of Canada in Quebec

Hi, the above list seems to have 2 mistakes: 1/ Saint-Joachim Processional Chapel in Varennes: not part of the HSMBC list; not to be confused with the Saint-Joachim Church in Châteauguay; 2/ Sainte-Anne Processional Chapel: the one on the HSMBC list is located in Neuville, not Varennes; in this case, the mistake is rather on Wikimedia Commons. Tango7174 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

File:RoyalVisitLandsdownePark.jpg

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

Damiens.rf 14:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libraries

You may want to see the discussion I started at Commons:Village pump#Category:Libraries, since you have at some time edited Category:Libraries. - Jmabel ! talk 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MP-1974.61.jpg

Hi, You created File:Sherbrooke from the east about 1858.jpg after my MP-1974.61.jpg and warned me for duplicate.

I'm not very familiar with Commons and most of my attempts were fails (I think I should keep it up to French Wikipedia). As I'm unfamaliar with this, could I ask your help for removing File:MP-1974.61.jpg to keep your file.

If you could also help me for four deletion requests that I cleary never finished correctly as I had no asnwer : available on Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/11/11, it would be very appreciated. Thank you for your help and suggestions.

P.S. Just a personal choice, but isn't keeping details like process (Silver salts on paper mounted on paper - Salted paper process) and original size (16 x 21 cm) any useful? --UncivilFire (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before this becomes an edit war...

... lets talk about it. I reverted your removal of "Buildings in New Zealand" out of the architecture category, with the (still valid) reasoning that the top category "buildings" sits under BOTH "architecture" AND "Structures". However, I initially did not see that you have (I assume) done so to avoid the overcat conflict that "Structures" also links up to "architecture" in the higher cats. So the real conflict is not at a country or city level, but at the top categories, where "buildings" and "structures" have an overcat conflict.

Now the simple way would be to remove the top category "building" from top category "architecture", claiming an overcat conflict. However, I see two issues here:

  • It is likely to create a firestorm, of both misunderstood and more reasoned disagreement - especially if one then also starts to replicate this corrected structure at lower levels. Lots of reverts and reverst back...
  • Secondly, "structures" is very broad. It includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with architecture, one could argue. Many bridges (indeed, most) never have an architect involved, and so do many other structures, like seawalls and so on. Therefore, people could argue (I lean to that myself) that "structures" should NOT be a subcategory of "architecture".

So let's pause the changing back and forth, and have a discussion. But maybe the best place to have it would be at "buildings", rather than on our talk pages here? Ingolfson (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal

Listen, if you continue to delete content and try to push your little political message you will be reported for vandalism. Grow up buddy !! --UrbanNerd (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and pay attention to the comments on your talk page. You are an adult. You can add whatever languages you want. Just don't expect others to clean after you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up man. --UrbanNerd (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore

Is this what you really meant to do? As far as I can see, you've left no category that indicates this is in Baltimore, which seems wrong to me. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag maps of Canada

Please explain why you are removing my category superceded flag maps of Canada. There is no reason for they to be jumbled into on big cat, when they can be properly sorted, with the superceded PNGs in a seperate cat. Please stop. Fry1989 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, there is nothing stopping people from using otyher versions. However, please do not remove the superceded PNGs from the superceded flag maps of Canada category. I will reverse your changes if you do. I have done tonnes of work sorting and categorizing all the Flag maps, as you can see in "Category:Maps incorporating flags by country", and "Category:Maps of Germany incorporating flags", where there were so many that it makes sense to add a superceded sub-cat. Fry1989 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also why have you now created "PNG Flag-maps of Canada". What is wrogn with the cat name "Superceded flag maps of", that way all superceded ones can be included, not just PNGs but GIFs and Jpegs too. Fry1989 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "superceded flag maps of" was hardly hidden. Would you accept having all the flag maps of Alberta for example, in the categories "Flags of Alberta", Maps of Alberta, and Superceded flag maps of Canada? With ethe other superceded maps to follow? Fry1989 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree greatly about it "rendering them useless". As I've said, there's no reason why those files can't still be used by those who wish. They're not up for deletion, and while there aren't any other examples for "superceded" cats, I chose that name because in many cases, it's not just PNGs, but GIFs and Jpegs as well, and I want a single cat for them, rather then over-categorization.. My purpose is to keep the categories neat and organized, and the German flag maps cat I think is a good example of that. I don't do it for most of the Flag maps by country sub-cats as you can see, just those such as Canada and Germany which have a great many images, including more then 10 which are superceded by a more accurate or usable SVG. Anyhow, I'm grateful you are reasonable to discussion, and I can assure you this won't be a regular thing for me. Fry1989 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'll always work on the flag maps project. It's fun :) Fry1989 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CC Licenses

Thanks for the info. I was unaware that CC licenses were irrevocable. I thought that this applied only to materials in the public domain. Thanks again. Jtalledo (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art in Toronto

Hey Skeezix, I wanted to ask about the move from Category:Art in Toronto to Category:Art of Toronto. Category:Art by city is mostly "in" rather than "of". Is there a clear naming convention somewhere or should we make one? - Themightyquill (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with this photo?

Hi Skeezix1000,
May I request your advice about the photo File:André Laurendeau et Jean Drapeau.jpg that I recently uploaded? At first, I misinterpreted the source caption as meaning that the photo was from 1944. But upon further consideration, it seems to me that the caption is not actually referring to the context of when this photo was taken, but instead the source caption is merely referring to the fact that the same two men had previously worked together in 1944. I'm guessing the photo itself might be from a later, unspecified, date, perhaps in the 1950s. (Just an hypothesis from the look of the photo: the two men may be commenting the death of Henri Bourassa in 1952.) Anyway, I'm not sure what to do with it now. On the basis of the available information, I tried to make the status of the photo as clear as possible in the permission field, but I realise that the absence of a clear author statement and of a precise date may be a problem and also that users who are unfamiliar with the Canadian Copyright Act may have some trouble to follow. We still don't have a PD template for the post-1948 corporate-authored photos that are in the public domain in Canada by the effect of section 10 of the Act, do we? Any advice appreciated. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requête

Bonjour, si tu as quelques minutes, j'ai quelques requêtes spéciales en lien avec le musée McCord :

Merci pour ton aide, --UncivilFire (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a license

I don't know how to get a license for these pictures and they are almost needed on the article. Can you help me by requesting licenses for these photos? Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

copied from my talk page:

Great. Go to Commons:Administrators/Requests/Skeezix1000 and add your acceptance, then transclude the page onto Commons:Administrators/Requests above Matanya. I should add that I assumed you're male -- if that was not good, please change my nomination appropriately.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Skeezix1000. You have new messages at Intoronto1125'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 ∙ +/−

Administrator

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Skeezix1000, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons on irc.freenode.net. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators:#wikimedia-commons-admin.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

I was wondering why you renamed File:Strz.jpg to File:Strž u Staré Huti - bývalé letní sídlo Karla Čapka.jpg when no valid reason listed in COM:MOVE was cited? --Tony Wills (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HalfLife Portal Logo.svg

I don't get it. Why my picture was deleted while "File:HalfLife Portal Logo.svg" was kept? They are identical, and both based on copyrighted logos. Klow (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to be more specific. I have no idea what your picture is. Can you provide a link to the deletion discussion? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The logo (i.e. File:HalfLife Portal Logo.svg) was, when I closed the deletion discussion, subject to a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. I presume you changed the source website today to make it copyrighted. But you cannot retract a Creative Commons license, so the file is still free to use under the terms of the license stated here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you think File:HalfLife Portal Logo.svg ought to be deleted, you need to list it for deletion by following this process:

You can nominate individual media files directly by going to the image description page and clicking on "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox on the left. More detailed instructions and browser requirements are described at the help page.

Reverting the removal of the deletion tag will technically not work. I think it would make more sense, however, for you to first explain to me what your concern is, before you go relisting anything for deletion. You may save yourself some time and trouble.

One last point: you should never remove a LicenseReview tag - if you disagree with the tag, contact the person who put it there and discuss your concerns. If you do not get a satisfactory response to your concerns, list the image for deletion and explain why you disagree with the tag. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the now deleted File:HLPverse.png, which I created myself, and on which this SVG is based on. My logo was removed because it was based on copyrighted material owned by Valve Corporation, so I don't see why this SVG version can stay, knowing it is based on a creation on my own (and with results much less better, but that's another story), itself based on copyrighted material. The CC BY-SA 3.0 license was chosen by the original uploader, and it is the same as the one I chose for my original logo. That's fine so far, though I'm not chose I myself chose the proper license. But the man claimed it to be his own work, which is untrue, so he breached the license by not giving attribution, and simply lying by claiming he made it. He made the file, but not mixing the two logos owned by Valve, and with these colors. Then I updated the captions to respect the license, so it was fixed. And I didn't make that TODAY, CHECK the page history before accusing me, and read the information I added last month! His pic was uploaded in Oct 2010, the original picture at the original source here in June 2010, check the date.
So then I uploaded here the original logo, but this version couldn't stay. Why? The uploader raised concerns about a possible copyright infringement in the caption when first uploading, and I also did. That doomed my pic, not this one? I don't see why a different treatment should be applied on that picture, that seems just random.
So in the end that's a lot of trouble for a picture uploaded by a guy who doesn't know about license and respecting the work of the others, and who's not even around anymore. If my picture had to go, this one as well. Period. Klow (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: who created the original logo (the actual logo itself, not necessarily the two versions uploaded to Commons) - you or the Valve Corporation? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made a logo from two logos created by Valve, here and here, to represent the shared Half-Life and Portal universe created by Valve. I don't know about the Aperture Science logo, but I know the Lambda logo is copyrighted by Valve. Klow (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the combination of the Aperture Science logo and the Lambda logo uniquely your creation? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flowered_Bokeh_May_2011.jpg

File:Flowered_Bokeh_May_2011.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Norbert Nagel 21:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

old discussion

hi;

i'm sorry, i didn't even notice your message about the mcrae house category, otherwise i'd have responded earlier (for some reason, i don't remember getting a "new messages" notice for it; possibly i was away, has several messages, & missed yours)

the issue was there are a plural number of "mcrae house'-es.

this one is in guelph, is his birthplace, & serves as a small museum abt him, family, & wwi; part of the property is also used as a war memorial garden.

he lived in a number of other places, over the course of his lifetime.

i believe his (primary) montreal residence also has a plaque, although i am unaware if there are any other "mcrae house"-es being used as museums relating to the person.

there is also, of course, the potential complication of other notable "mcrae"s, their houses, etc.

Lx 121 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mosque at bekkal cropped.JPG

You closed this as deleted, but it looks like you forgot to actually carry out the deletion. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 15:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Thanks for the reminder. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Replied at my talk. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Ok, I just wanted to help, I was contributing in other categorizations. I did not know he had that procedure, then I'll start when I have time, because it takes time to write because I do not know English well. Bye, --Falerístico (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:نهر دجلة.jpg

Please take care about another file mentioned in request. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans' Green War Memorial

Hey, thanks for your help tidying up the categories. Amazing artwork that contraption is eh? When I took the picture, an 83 year old little lady spoke to me and told me that the thing cost $350,000 to build, the artist was local to Waterloo and that he had it sent to Taiwan to be bronzed. She also told me that all the people shown on there were based on veterans' photographs, so they're actually real people. You can see her walking off in one of the shots. She told me her husband was in WW2 and had become a Japanese POW, working on the bridge across the River Kwai. He had come home emaciated, like 98 pounds. Then his son married a Japanese girl in Canada and they all got on OK anyway. Her husband passed away a few years ago. Pretty amazing stories she had. One of the veterans' depictions further up the tail has a hat on that makes him look like Napoleon. She was wondering why he was on there. I opined that probably Napoleon was not the only one with a hat like that in those days. I could not believe the amount of work and detail in this artwork. It stopped me in my tracks so I could take the photographs. Best regards, --Achim Hering (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renommage

Merci pour le renommage du fichier File:Rufus - Patrologia orientalis, tome 8, fascicule 1, n°36 - Plérophories.djvu. — Pikinez (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De rien. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Thanks, bad mistake, doh! --:bdk: 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

version deletion vs. speedy

Hi Skeezix1000, sure - speedy may not be fully to the words of the rules for this - but what else do you suggest? Speedy solves the problem very well: it is a version deletion which does not need discussion (if it would have been uploaded as a new file it would be eligible for deletion without deletion request, wouldn't it?), it brings it to attention of admins who have time to work on the backlogs, it does not clutter pages like Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard. And: You are the first one who is complaining that this is no "appropriate" use of speedy. :-) I did use this way many times and it works fine. I do not think we need another template for {{Speedy version deletion}}. Interested in your comment here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see - User_talk:Aaaccc - you mixed up the contributors. ;-) The speedy was mine and probably you didn't read my reason for speedy fully, right? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, vey. You are absolutely right. I do agree with your first comment, now that I understand you were talking about a fair use rationale. Sorry for the confusion! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :-) By the way: I have nominated it for deletion now ... the permission is not clear. :( Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skeezix1000/Archive_1&oldid=644647456"