User talk:Liftarn/Archive 14

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

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hello, Liftarn!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Pachuco.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!

Captain-tucker (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright status: Image:57 Fireflite.JPG[edit]

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 Image:57 Fireflite.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.

Rrburke (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:5th DAN 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!

--Oliver Kurmis (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:CelicaST185GT4ALongBeach2.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!

Huib talk 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Robert_F_Engle_Composite.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!

Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gamewatch mariobros closed.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!

--Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gamewatch mariobros open.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!

--Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Game and Watch Donkey Kong.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!

--Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Game and Watch BALL.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!

--Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image does NOT show a "Plattenbau". A "Plattenbau" describes the way appartment buildings were built in EAST GERMANY (1949 to 1991). If you have not taken this image in the former EAST GERMANY, the category is absolutely wrong. If you do not know anything exactly of that issue, please do not play the expert!


File tagging File:Bestia.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

-Nard the Bard 17:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:BW47-rg12.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

-Nard the Bard 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferrari 599 GTB - grey front right 4 (Argyle Place, Carlton, Victoria, Australia, 3 March 2007).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!

--Leoboudv (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File source is not properly indicated: File:AlagoasFlag.jpg[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:AlagoasFlag.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:AlagoasFlag.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

--User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File source is not properly indicated: File:Ganamuktiparishad.PNG[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ganamuktiparishad.PNG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Ganamuktiparishad.PNG]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

--User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright status: Image:CNT FAI flag.png[edit]

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 Image:CNT FAI flag.png. 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.

User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medborgarplatsen[edit]

In the Esseltub article in the English Wikipedia, the talk page claims that the typeface show in the image you created, is not Esseltub. Can you confirm this, and could you provide a new photo of the sign at this stop?

Sign in the metro station at Medborgarplatsen.

,


File:Nacktreiten.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!

--SB_Johnny talk 10:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:X-Wing2.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  +/−

--Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

Plrk (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Pay attention to copyright
File:Firefox_Options.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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

blurpeace (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope[edit]

العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | 简体中文 | +/−


Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, File:BrainBSOD.png, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

blurpeace (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are new versions of Toyoda ja.jpg and Toyota ja.jpg on the German Wikipedia ([1] and [2]). Can you upload the new files?--79.210.242.254 13:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done using http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php // Liftarn (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you--79.210.197.141 14:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Qutabminardelhi.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!

--Leoboudv (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Pay attention to copyright
File:53 daenarys.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  +/−

--Sv1xv (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:53 daenarys.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:53 daenarys.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Sv1xv (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Bermuda_Regiment_Cap_Badge.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!

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP Nomination[edit]

Nomination Notification

G'day! I love File:US Navy gas mask exercise 021015-N-6996M-589.jpg, that you've uploaded to Commons, so I've nominated it for Featured Picture status. Its nomination is at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy gas mask exercise 021015-N-6996M-589.jpg. Best of luck! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Fremont_bridge_troll,_seattle,_washington,_usa.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!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2009 (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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 22:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:StollenWrap.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!

--Leoboudv (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File source is not properly indicated: File:DRAfghanistanEarlyFlag.png[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:DRAfghanistanEarlyFlag.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:DRAfghanistanEarlyFlag.png]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

--User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i put up this file: File:Bayeux raven banner 1.png for deletion because i found a better quality image: File:Raven banner (Bayeux Tapestry).jpg. Just letting you know.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Moussaieffreddiamond.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!

Jac815 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File tagging File:Cesca1.jpg[edit]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Cesca1.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Cesca1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volume of Latuff images[edit]

Your comments are requested at Commons:Village pump#Latuff repository. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Yes, but there are a few differences. If you look at my edits, I added neither of those categories to the cartoons; rather, I added more specific categories that do not apply to all Latuff cartoons, therefore the additions should stand. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they are. Not all of Latuff's cartoons are Anti-Zionist, and not even all of them are propoganda, although they are political. They certainly add to the visitor to commons' understanding of Latuff and the differences between his vvarious cartoons. I am somewhat concerned about the incorrect summary you gave to mass-reverting my clarifications, but I understand that you likely misread the categories I added. As for subcats, since they do not apply to every Latuff, or even every Latuff I-P cartoon, they are inappropriate. Actual categorization of each image correctly is what matters, which I am certain you would agree with, for the betterment of the commons. -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly concur that irrelevant categories should not be added. However, to say that Anti-Zionism and Political propoganda are not appropriate to various Latuff caricatures is about as credible as saying that they are not related to I-P or carciturization either. I kindly ask you to realize that categorization on the commons is to inform, educate and clarify for the reader, not for political motive. You are free to take the issue up on the villiage pump as I did regarding the volume of Latuff's work. -- Avi (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop both changing the categories on many of these images and instead engage in discussions about this issue. Adambro (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their intent is to influence the reader and to create a link between Israelis, Jews, and Nazis, which is propaganda according to any deifnition. Secondly, I explained why a subcategory is inappropriate, unless you mean "Anti-Zionistic propaganda of Carlos Latuff", which is, in my opinion, ridiculous if we already have the two existing categories. Adding the two catgeoris to the specific Anti-Zionistic propagandist cartoons of Latuff, and not the others (such as the Forgiveness ones) is the cleanest, most efficient, most commons-appropriate way to properly categorize these images, which already exists in the Commons catergozation lexicon. If you have a better solution, I suggest you bring it up at the pump or somewhere centralzied so a discussion may be had; but creating new redundant categories to fit one particular artist strikes me as being somewhat bizarre. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Liftarn, if I may ask, what do you see as the difference between:
  1. Category:Propaganda cartoons and Category:Political propaganda and
  2. Category:Anti-Zionistic cartoons and Category:Anti-Zionism?
in each case, the former is what you suggest and the latter already exists on the commons. As long as each image is also tagged "Cartoon/Caricature" then that is exactly what we already have, and has the benefit of allowing for better cross-reference searching through categories? -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The former (cartoons) would be a subcategory of the latter. That way it would make it easier to find. But I still think it is needless as it is listed (some cats up) in both Category:Editorial cartoons and Category:Political cartoons. It would be easier to add the entire Category:Editorial cartoons as a subcat to Category:Propaganda. // Liftarn (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with that is not every political cartoon is propaganda. Even in Latuff, I do not think that the "Forgiveness" cartoons are propaganda, although they are certainly political. Also, sub-categorization is good if there are many "parents". If a category tree is basically filled with only one sub-category node at each level, that defeats the purpose of the categorization and obfuscates the relationships. -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suggest the category should be added to every image, but only the relevant ones. // Liftarn (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what I did with categories almost identical to what you suggest, which have the two benefits of 1) already existing on the commons and 2) not being single-entry special-purpose categories, so I am now unsure what the basis for our disagreement is? -- Avi (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with that categorisation since the images clearly isn't propaganda, not is about antizionims, but if you insist on it please do it in a good way. By your reasoning we should have no subcategories at all in Commons, but just a single Category:Everything. // Liftarn (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, when multiple parent categories can combine, then sub-categorization is appropriate to minimize the tree, but when the proposed category has only one node per level, then either no, or at most one, category is saved, and the parsimony is outweight by the obfuscation in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding relevant subcategories to avoid crowding the main cat is perfectly valid to do. // Liftarn (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think you have a point regarding Category:Political propaganda; even though there are only 40 images in the parent level, as currently there are a number of subcategories having a cartoon-specific subcat may be appropriate,. Regarding Category:Anti-Zionism, however, there is only one subcat, and the parent cat is not overwhelmed with images (less than 200, less than 50 for that matter) so it may be wiser to leave that one for now until it gets over-full. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. May I also kindly ask you to only use relevant categories based on what the image shows, not how you feel about it. // Liftarn (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda is a word imported into English from Italian. In Italian the word is used to describe all advertising, and therefore "political propaganda" simply mean anything media material that promotes a political point of view. Latuff's cartoons clearly fall into that category. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but it is not propaganda in the modern sense of the word. // Liftarn (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The commons definition of Propaganda is "Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete and balanced picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts, and generally refers to efforts sponsored by governments and political parties." That applies completely and totally to Latuff (serving agenda, partisan, fails to paint a valid picture) AND the commons realizes that not all propaganda needs to be govt sponsored. Per the commons definition itself, many, if not most, of the Latuff images, and the ones in specific which I have tagged, are propaganda. However, I think that creation of Category:Propaganda cartoons as a subset of Political propaganda may be the way to go; I'd like to think a bit more. I may open a discussion on Category talk:Political propaganda. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the broad definition that any cartoon with a political subject is propaganda then they are! If you use the definition of a propaganda cartoon as "a cartoon I don't like" then it's a different issue. // Liftarn (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you do as I do, which is take the Commons definition of propaganda, then any time a cartoon is made to highlight or bias one side of situation, be it political or be it free-use-related, to serve an agenda (which usually is to influence the viewer) then it becomes more clear which cartoons are propaganda (the Nazi ones) and which ones are not (the forgiveness ones - which do not bias any side). -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per your original suggestion, I have created Category:Propaganda cartoons. This way we do not unfairly tag all editorial cartoons and all political cartoons as propaganda. Rather, we can now specify which cartoons are propaganda and which are not. Thank you very much for the suggestion! -- Avi (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is exactly what you are doing. You are unfairly tagging images you don't like as propaganda. // Liftarn (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am tagging images that are in accordance with the commons's definition. My personal preferences have nothing to do with it, as can be seen by looking at the media in the category already, Liftarn. -- Avi (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not difficult to tell a specific bias. // Liftarn (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any Israeli cartoons on the commons, kindly point me in their direction--I've been working on American politics recently as you can see by my contributions. -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quickly found and added a few, but it interesting that you have admitted your bias. // Liftarn (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not bias, but ignorance, which I freely admit to (and is more easily remedied). The Barry Hunau category is a good example; thanks! -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of promoting terrorism[edit]

Your remark suggesting that I try to promote terrorism has not escaped my eyes. If you won't apologize, I'll ask to block you for that. Drork (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said you promote terrorism. // Liftarn (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to play innocent. I does not become you. Drork (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion over at Commons:Village_pump#Terrorists or freedom fighters. // Liftarn (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may comment here Drork (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of Latuff related images[edit]

This is a request to those who, looking at page histories, seem most active in changing the categories of Latuff related images. As per my comments here, I must encourage you all to participate in discussions to arrive at a consensus as to appropriate categorisation instead of changing the categories without consensus.

The constant changing of the categorisation of File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png has necessitated its protection from editing. This is an invitation to properly discuss this on the talk page, not to find another Latuff related image and continue to edit war regarding that image's categories.

If the constant changing of categories continues then I will be compelled to take further action to reduce the disruptive nature of this by considering the protection of further pages or blocking of users involved, all of whom are experienced enough to understand why edit warring isn't constructive.

Please try, however difficult it may be, to engage in proper discussions with other members of the Commons community to find an acceptable categorisation to all. Adambro (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this a final warning about changing controversial categorisation without discussion as you did again here. Adambro (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I hope you also extends the same offer to the one who added those controversial categories as well. // Liftarn (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the admin board thread[edit]

Hi Liftarn, I've archived the user conduct discussion since it appeared to have served its useful purpose. During the discussion I mentioned a few historic images that could become featured pictures and I restored a portrait of Golda Meir as a gesture of good faith. Not sure how to phrase this without risking inadvertent offense since it might not be quite in line with your tastes, but there are also images that relate to Palestinian heritage and culture that are worth similar attention. Haven't been able to find a public domain portrait of Yasir Arafat, unfortunately. Yet there's a good selection of photographs of daily life from the early twentieth century such as this hand colored photograph from 1919.[3] If you know the names of prominent political figures from that era I may be able to locate portraits. Respectfully, Durova (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what you're aming for, but I think Category:Folke Bernadotte could be beefed up a bit. Now it the historical photos are generally of quite low resolution. // Liftarn (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drork[edit]

Liftarn, please don't allow yourself to be drawn into pointless conflicts with Drork and try to focus on the issues that need to be discussed. This is a example of a comment which may or may not be valid but only prolong the time it will take to reach a resolution of the issues being discussed.

Also, I have asked that both of you stick to discussing categorisation issues rather than simply enforcing your own opinion. The edit history of Category:Lehi (group) suggests this behaviour has resumed. My request, whilst primarily in reference to the Latuff images, shouldn't be seen as a green light for similar behaviour regarding other related issues. Therefore, I must warn you both that if this continues blocks may have to be considered. Adambro (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe there will never be a resolution since some users are not willing to reach any compromise or even listen to any argument I intend to do my best to remain civil in the face of provocation as well as to do my best to avoid getting drawn into edit wars. // Liftarn (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your response though illustrates part of the problem. Please avoid describing other users in terms such as "political extremists". Adambro (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please advice on a more palatable way to describe that type of users. // Liftarn (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mbz compares you to a monkey

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dschwen#:-.29_One_of_a_kind_barnstar_for_you.21_:-.29

Not surprised. // Liftarn (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing around Category:Terrorism[edit]

Hi Liftarn, you have once argued for the deletion of this category, now you are repeatedly attempting to add controversial cases like Category:United States Army and Category:Central Intelligence Agency to this category ([4], [5], [6], and [7]). To me this looks as you are attempting to illustrate a point which is highly disruptive. Please do not continue this. You are welcome, however, to discuss at at the appropriate talk page about criteria for inclusion. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the vote ended in a keep so now I'm using it. As for criteria for inclusion I have already started discussing that and I'm working according to the draft. // Liftarn (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did click the source, Iran is hardly a neutral impartial source, MSNBC merely reported what Iran said, MSNBC didn't make the claim just relayed it. RlevseTalk 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And? Is Iran any less reliable than the US? // Liftarn (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously need that question answered? ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO to answer the question liftarn asked first we have to establish what is Iran. To me Iran is thousands upon thousands Iranians, who are protesting regime, and getting arrested and murdered for doing so. Apparently to you Iran is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And just for the record, if I may ask, are Al-Qaeda and Usama reliable sources too in your opinion?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call Al-Qaeda and Usama reliable sources in this context since they does not represent the leadership of a given country. // Liftarn (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your position. I believe I understand what you mean now: If Al-Qaeda and Usama represented the leadership, of let's say Afghanistan, only then you would have considered them to be a reliable source.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As it is they are just a random organisation and their opinions can not really be judged. // Liftarn (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my questions! It really helps me to get to know you better. If I may, I'd like to ask one more question please. Let's say Al-Qaeda with Usama and Taliban were in power in Afghanistan. You would have considered them a reliable source in my understanding. Then 9/11 happens, and let's say Al-Qaeda with Usama and Taliban still kept their leadership in Afghanistan after that. Would they still be a reliable source in your opinion in the situation I described above.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, their opinions in diplomatic matters is determined by their position as heads of state, not by their actions. // Liftarn (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time, it is really very nice of you to respond all my questions. I have only the last one to ask, please. Let's say that you're considering adding let's say category:terrorism to let's say Category:United States Army. The leadership of Iran claims that United States Army is a terrorist organization. Of course the leadership of US has just an opposite opinion. According to your own definition of reliability both sources are reliable. My question is how would you chose between the two to decide for or against adding category:terrorism to Category:United States Army. Please do forgive me all the questions I am asking. I'm simply trying to learn how to add the right categories to the images.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will duplicate what has already been written at Category talk:Terrorism#Inclusion criteria. My suggestion would be that you can't add negative definitions and you write who made the claim, i.e. write in the category description that "AAA is considered to be a terrorist organisation by BBB." There is also a suggestion to use categories based on who makes the claim, such as Category:Considered terrorist by NNN. I think there also should be a way to deal with organisations/persons formerly considered terrorists like ANC and PLO. // Liftarn (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Eusebius (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ewaste-crtkid.jpg[edit]

Hi there, we have used two of your e-watse recycling pics in this article: http://www.blatantworld.com/documentary/e_waste_in_india.html cheers for providing it under license

Have you sought clarification that the OTRS ticket permits this particular image? The ticket only seems to give permission for images from cartoonsbybarry.com, not all cartoons by Barry Hunau. Is this image available on that website? Adambro (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cartoonsbybarry.com is just a wrapper. The actual content is actually at http://web.mac.com/thehunaus/cartoons_by_barry so it depends on your viwepoint. I would say it is. // Liftarn (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in this edit you removed Category:Anti-Zionism and Category:Propaganda cartoons, and added Category:Israeli West Bank barrier in art. Your edit summary though was simply "Category:Israeli West Bank barrier in art". This is a reminder that since the categorisation of Latuff images is controversial, you are advised to discuss anything but trivial changes and I'd also emphasise the importance of clear edit summaries. Adambro (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help replace this outdated license[edit]

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

BotMultichillT 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Jesusdressup.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!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:SaintPoisCT.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  polski  português  português do Brasil  sicilianu  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  ไทย  日本語  Tiếng Việt  中文  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−

--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

You seem to have returned to changing the categorisation of Latuff related images without discussion. Whilst I appreciate that some of the edits simply revert an equally questionable removal of a category and some have been previously discussed, that should indicate the categorisation remains controversial and you should take it to the talk page yourself to try to resolve the issue. Adambro (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I undid some undiscussed and controversial removal of valid categories. In the edit comment I also suggested that the user should discuss the issue first before removing categories. // Liftarn (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Liftarn, could you provide a little bit more background information about that car. DId the fire result from a malfunction or from an attack? What is the location (city)? --Túrelio (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Antiruss.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!

User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pay attention to copyright
File:Lichtschwert.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

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  +/−

FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Crabby_Office_Lady_-_Annik_Stahl.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!

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File source is not properly indicated: File:CassTape.JPG[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:CassTape.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:CassTape.JPG]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Eusebius (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Smyrne_Group_of_Gypsy.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!

LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Dizzy Gillespie at the Nambassa 3 day Music & Alternatives festiva,l New Zealand 1981. Photographer Michael Bennetts..jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Dizzy Gillespie at the Nambassa 3 day Music & Alternatives festiva,l New Zealand 1981. Photographer Michael Bennetts..jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Rockfang (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:1951elections.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!

User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive diagrams[edit]

Hey, it'd be nice if you'd categorize things you tag with {{SVG}} into the best-matching subcategory instead of the all-encompassing parent category “Images that should use vector graphics”. Said category is pretty crowded by now and it's best if it'd be less crowded some day. For the pictures indicated in the heading here, tagging them as {{SVG|diagram}} would be fitting. The documentation on {{SVG}} contains some information about the allowed arguments and what type of content is appropriate for them. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File source is not properly indicated: File:Tu-144LL.jpg[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Tu-144LL.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saved your image Liftarn: Here, you can eye up what I have added in order to keep this photograph. --High Contrast (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nikon D40.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!

--Wknight94 talk 01:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes antizionism. This caricature show Israel soldier as bastard. --Pomeranian (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very novel interpretation of what antizionism is. I thought it was the opposition to the existance of Israel. // Liftarn (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File source is not properly indicated: File:2006_july_cover_small.jpg[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:2006_july_cover_small.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:2006_july_cover_small.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:PanzerIII.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!

80.187.97.83 08:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:PantherTankColor.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!

80.187.97.83 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Laufendes-Auge.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!

Kragenfaultier (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Dalgrunt2.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  +/−

--Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Blowjob.svg 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!

--Black Falcon (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File source is not properly indicated: File:S17.jpeg[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:S17.jpeg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:S17.jpeg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Polarlys (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File source is not properly indicated: File:S20.jpeg[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:S20.jpeg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:S20.jpeg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Polarlys (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File source is not properly indicated: File:S8-poster.jpeg[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:S8-poster.jpeg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:S8-poster.jpeg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Polarlys (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:1may-subbotnik.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!

-Nard the Bard 23:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Die_Nohner2.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!

-Nard the Bard 16:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


#invoke:Autotranslate ---Nard the Bard 18:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Template:AutotranslatePolarlys (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Autotranslate Masur (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]