User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2013

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

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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 please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Check images[edit]

Hello,

File:Off-duty GIs tour Guantanamo's border gates.png is a cropped-down version of Off duty GIs, on a tour of the Guantanamo base, mingle just inside the gate to Cuba -a.jpg, so I have deleted it. Greetings. --M0tty (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated License[edit]

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


Hello. Thank you for uploading File:Bay St., looking s. from Queen St. W..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 file correctly? If you are not able to do this, the file 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 Help desk. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 21:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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


Hello. Thank you for uploading File:Fire Hall, Etobicoke, Royal York Road, s.e. cor. Tenby St. -b.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 file correctly? If you are not able to do this, the file 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 Help desk. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:20110703 0332 Mackenzie River, bridge & ferry, Yellowknife 2011.jpg[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that the Flickr account (http://www.flickr.com/people/cbweather/) is the same person as CambridgBayWeather. Glad you commented on the image or I might have missed it. That's the fifth one I found this week. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Four Bagram escapees from an Afghan leaflet.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!

russavia (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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 please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 06:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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 please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 06:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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 please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 06:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Your assistance please[edit]

Hi Geo Swan. Images restored. However, could put the corresponding license in image? Example: {{Cc-by-2.0}}. Regards. Érico Wouters msg 17:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spirit of Vancouver Island and the Spirit of British Columbia.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!

Compdude123 06:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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 please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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 please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Taliban fighters on a pickup truck.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!

Officer (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taliban fighters hiding in a cave.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!

Officer (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images with watermarks[edit]

Hi, Geo. When you upload a group of images with watermarks like you did recently (e.g. File:51 Division - Toronto Police Building NE corner of Front and Parliament.jpg), please crop the images before or immediately after the upload. As a project, Commons is drowning in images that need watermarks removed (the backlog is current more than 50,000+ files, and it keeps growing). In the case of these images, it is inappropriate for Wikimedia Commons to be hosting spam watermarks promoting a fitness website. Having said that, they are good images to have on the project if they could be cropped. At a minimum, please tag them with {{Crop}} (technically, we should be using {{Watermark}}, but given the backlog they'd just end up in watermark hell - since most of these images would logically have the watermarks removed by cropping a slice off the bottom, the crop tag works in these limited circumstances). Thanks for your understanding. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes with City of Toronto Archives markings - 90% were added decades later by COTA are not part of the historic photo. We wouldn't want to keep them here, making the image less usable, except to make a note of the information the notations contain. In this image, the notation wasn't even legible, and made the image a lot less useful - it needed to be cropped. Ideally the uploader does it, but at a minimum it should be tagged at the time of the upload. By the way, and I'm sorry to be pestering you today, why didn't you upload these COTA images (like File:Traffic on Yonge St. looking north....jpg) directly from the COTA website. For most photos, you get a better resolution version and likely more information - for this particular photo, the COTA website had the precise date, the photographer, and a slightly higher resolution version. Uploading off a source like an internet forum just creates a lot of work here at the Commons. Again, sorry to such a whiner, but there are so many backlogs here at the Commons, and sometimes it is easy to avoid adding to the work pile. :) Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Double ended Weston Road.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!

Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:PCC streetcar of the TTC on the old Oakwood route.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!

Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Design of the town of York blockhouses 1 and 2, York, 1823.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.

Denniss (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Design of the town of York blockhouses, 1799 -a.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.

Denniss (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Water transport"[edit]

[1]: really? I wouldn't normally put a body of water under "water transport." - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:LettersfromSpeerChildren PE 31 34 35 36 October 28 2010.source.prod affiliate.56.pdf 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!

JuTa 06:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medical checkup by phone for compression lab participants.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!

Bron766 (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am sorry to be a pest, but please be careful in uploading images. This image had no description (!), the categories you used violated COM:OVERCAT, there were conflicting licenses, the source template was in the wrong field, there were unnecessary/repetitive external links in the image description, the Toroto Archives was identified as an author (!), there were some wikitext problems ("[[creator:Arthur Goss]]" - I suppose you were trying to use a creator template, but there isn't one for Goss), and the image needs to be cropped (!!). You are a very experienced contributor, so I am just puzzled why so many of your uploads need such extensive clean-up after the fact (I totally appreciate that some of it is a factor of Upload Wizard, which was not designed with historic images on Flickr in mind, but one still needs to go back and fix the issues caused by Upload Wizard). I am by no means perfect (and routinely have others correcting errors or omissions of mine), so I am definitely not accusing you of anything that I myself could also not stand to improve (in particular, I am not always as careful as I need to be with image descriptions). I encourage you to keep uploading more historic images, esp. of Toronto, but there are so few of us, and so much work to do, and we should all be striving not to be adding so much to our massive backlogs. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, please consider identifying all of the images you upload with City/Town, Province/State/Region and Country in the image description. Commons is a multilingual, global project, and we should not take for granted that users know where Hanlan's Point, Toronto, Manitoba, Saskatoon, etc. are. I learned this the hard way, working on categorizing monument and memorial images across many countries. Even though I consider myself fairly well versed in geography and history, it was exhausting trying to figure out where to categorize images that were only identfied with the name of the town or city in (for example) Germany or Russia. I can only image how annoying it can sometimes be for users who come across images on the project, identified only with the name of some town in Canada with whch they are unfamiliar, and they need to work up the category chain (assuming it has been properly categorized - a big if) just to find out where the photo was taken. Clear and complete image descriptions are really important. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one more aside, and then I will shut the f*** up and leave you alone. The "original caption" template is great when there is a historic notation on an image that we want to incorporate into the image description, or there is some sort of other information that needs to be repeated verbatim (e.g. wording that is intrinsically part of the image). It is not really appropriate or needed for cutting and pasting information off of contemporary websites - we should be focusing instead on having clear, well-written descriptions. Cheers. Sorry for the rants, and I apologize for coming across as holier-than-thou. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Second Cup in Edmonton 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!


Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of City installed photographs[edit]

These are all relatively recent work by professional photographers and therefore not in the public domain. File:Tony Bock, Gardiner demolition looking west, 2001 -- an illustration on a support of a former section of the Gardiner, 2013 04 27 -j.jpg (2001), File:An illustration on a support of a former section of the Gardiner, 2013 04 27 -h.JPG (2001), File:An illustration on a support of a former section of the Gardiner, 2013 04 27 -e.JPG (2001), File:Peter MacCallum, off-ramp under demolition east of Leslie St. January, 2001. Toronto Archives -- an illustration on a support of a former section of the Gardiner, 2013 04 27 -c.jpg (2001) and File:Peter MacCallum, Joy oil tank demolition, Unwin Avenue, 1997. -- an illustration on a support of a former section of the Gardiner, 2013 04 27 -d.jpg (1997). You also cannot claim copyright on your copy of these. I don't want to tag them and will leave it for you to deal with. Have you searched the City Archives to see if you can find the old ones? There is no point in having your copies if the originals are available. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good catch. I assumed they were city of toronto archive photographers. Thanks for leaving it up to me to tag them. That is always simpler.
As to the older ones -- I like the look of them, and would keep them even if we find the digitized versions from the archive. Geo Swan (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TO2015 Athlete's village[edit]

If you have any more athlete's village photos that would be great. Thanks. Intoronto1125 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do have others. I'll add them to the category tomorrow. Geo Swan (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Do you have photos of some of the venues under construction as well (like the aquatics centre at UTSC).

Your recent uploads :)[edit]

Hello. I don't have the technical photographic expertise to judge whether or not this photo would qualify as a Quality Image here on the Commons, but from my own personal perspective I must say this is a great photograph, given all that it captures (and knowing how different this scene will look in 10 years). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks
It didn't occur to me that it might be regarded as an exceptional image.
I uploaded the parts I stitched to make it, so that anyone who thought they were better at stitching could take their own crack at it.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:US Special Forces on horseback, Afghanistan, 2001.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!

Officer (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for info about Jcb voting. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Though I didn't file a user-complaint, I find your canvassing inappropriate. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#inappropriate_canvassing_against_about_re-admin_of_Jcb. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

replied at AN. Geo Swan (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment placement[edit]

Hey Geo Swan, I noticed you moved my comments at AN to make it clearer who's responding to whom in the discussion. The reason I posted in the middle was because I was responding to specific points in your comment, and responding to a wall of text with a wall of text kind of makes the discussion tedious to follow... I added a few signatures inbetween to make it clear who is commenting – is it better like that? Feel free to revert if you feel the previous format was clearer. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I accept you did not place your comments in the middle of mine with any bad intent. But interspersing new comments in the middle of someone else's comment is problematic in several ways. That is why wikidocuments recommend it be avoided.
  1. Interspersing new comments in the middle of an earlier respondent's comments is confusing to later readers, as it leaves the first fragment of the earlier respondent's comment unsigned. Later readers are entitled to know who wrote it.
  2. Interspersing new comments in the middle of an earlier respondent's comments is likely to make that earlier respondent look like they can't write a whole, coherent comment. The first fragment looks unfinished. The second fragment looks like it needs an introduction.
This is not so bad if no one follows up on your interspersed comments. But you can't predict how many followups your comment may get.
There have been a number of times I have come across a long discussion, that has had multiple contributors, and dozens of separate comments, where the discussion was hard to follow, as it looked like there was someone incoherent, who sprinkled a bunch of unsigned paragraphs throughout the discussion, where each of those fragmentary paragraphs had only a fragment of a coherent argument. I have tried to step back through some of those discussion, one revision at a time, so I could figure out who left those fragmentary paragraphs, and I could populate an {{Unsigned}} template identifying the author. When I used to do that I would almost always find that those fragmentary paragraphs were once a properly signed sequence of paragraphs -- paragraphs that when read otgether were actually much more coherent. The people who broke up those coherent revisions by interspersing new comments did the earlier respondent a terrific disservice.
I think this is the main reason why breaking up another person's argument is not recommended. I encourage you to consider following those recommendations. Geo Swan (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. The current format works for me. I was trying to make the discussion more readable, but I understand how it could have the opposite effect once responses and their responses pile up. Jafeluv (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Hi Geo Swan, as you may have noticed, my admin rights have been restored. I think you didn't expect this outcome and to be honest I am surprised as well. When I came back from a long wikibreak a few weeks ago, I was really not expecting to be an admin again in the near (or even far) future. Now the rights got restored, I will do my best to avoid the problems from 2011 to repeat.

Although we may never become friends, we have to realize that we are working in the same community. I would like to just forget about any conflict we have had in the past and have a clean start. Jcb (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Three Six Nations veterans of the War of 1812.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!

Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

renaming[edit]

Sorry for the unfortunate renaming. I should have checked before acceding to the request. -- Charlik (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tim Hortons drive through menu at night.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!

DS (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Kangaroo[edit]

Hi there, Regarding your post at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg I to noticed that comment by Arctic Kangaroo and by looking at their global contributions I restored a number of uses. But to avoid an edit war I didn't mention anything and didn't undo the edit but instead restored the images usage. I didn't want to let Arctic Kangaroo and start and edit war or escalate the situation further (the same reason I have posted this here and not at the DR). Liamdavies (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew about it almost 10 days ago. Currently discussing with Jimbo through email. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:calling for discussion[edit]

There were two type of categories "Category:Homeless of [name of the state]" and "Category:Homelessness of [name of the state]". The first type was more widespread so I move the files there. I'm sorry for my errors. I will not delete a category if I'm not 100% sure.--SunOfErat (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paramount -- a coffee shop on Yonge north of Shuter -b.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!

Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paramount -- a coffee shop on Yonge north of Shuter -c.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!

Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1921 rail[edit]

By the way, I rudely never responded at the time, but thanks for pointing this out to me. It is PD, and I moved it to the Commons. Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willa Holland at TIFF 2008.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!

CennoxX (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Justin Long at TIFF 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!

CennoxX (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Construction on the Jane loop in 1935.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.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! . . . except that it is 1936 not 35. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rough work[edit]

The railway tracks cross Cherry--adding a TTC subway station, or GO train station, has been considered

Hi Geo Swan, any idea why this file is practically empty? (some covert NSA operation ;-) ?) --Túrelio (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Dusk over Marine Hill, Guantanamo.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.

JuTa 19:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:10-20-2008 Dismissal of Sworn Charges Dated 5-28-2008 (Charge Sheet).pdf 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!

McZusatz (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danube Excursion vessel, Regensburg.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!

High Contrast (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Eleassar (t/p) 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this discussion done? Regards, --rimshottalk 19:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Streetcars being loaded at the Polson slip -a.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!

178.7.227.93 15:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newly painted mural on a phone switching box, 2013 09 15.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!

178.7.227.93 15:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sleeping outside in the rain in Crombie Park, 2013 08 30 (3).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!

178.7.227.93 15:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:USMC fry in the sky laserbeam -- supposed to burn a bad guys clothes off their body -b.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!

178.10.104.87 12:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coryphodon -b.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!

FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Geo Swan/archive. You have new messages at Jmabel'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  +/−

- Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Streets_and_Roads_in_Edmonton 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!


Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Eleassar (t/p) 09:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Ray Evans Enlistment sm.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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind words for you[edit]

Great work that ya doin', especially on not feeding the trolls. ;) Keep up the great work. *applause* 171.207.189.50 16:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw...[edit]

you don't know you have to sign? No sincerity in the warning 171.207.189.50 16:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foreign Ministers Lawrence Cannon, Patricia Espinosa, Hillary Rodham Clinton meet in Wakefield, Quebec.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!

January (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foreign Ministers Lawrence Cannon, Patricia Espinosa, Hillary Rodham Clinton meet in Wakefield, Quebec -b.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!

January (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Athabasca_Landing,_Slave_River 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!


117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Limmat River 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!


Schofför (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Looking at the Ashbridges Bay Carhouse, 2013 04 27 -ev.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!

St1995 19:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Looking at the Ashbridges Bay Carhouse, 2013 04 27 -eu.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!

St1995 19:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy days[edit]

Be merry, my friend. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seasonable greetings to you too. Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]