User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 3

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

Entscheidungsfrage

Hallo Angr. Ich wollte dich mal bezüglich deiner Behalten-Entscheidung zu Image:Gustav lilienthal.jpg und Image:Carl-Ernst-Bock.jpg fragen, seit wann wir Bilder behalten, bei denen der Beweis aussteht, dass diese auch wirklich Public domain sind? Wie man an dieser Analyse sehen kann, sind Daten wie 1886 bei weitem davon entfernt, sicher zu sein. Noch dazu wurde beim Lilienthal-Bild wie man am Upload-Log erkennen kann, sogar das Datum geändert und ist eigentlich 1896. -- Cecil (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Die auch: Image:Carl-Friedrich-von-Siemens.jpg, Image:Adolf Friedrich Stenzler.gif und Image:Johann von Lamont Astronom.jpg. Toll. Da macht sich wer die Mühe und sucht Bilder raus, die nicht nur teilweise mies bequellt sind sondern bei denen auch die angegebene Lizenz fraglich ist und dann wird aufgrund einer möglichen Wahrscheinlichkeit entschieden, dass die Rechte des Fotografen nichts wert sind, und die Benutzer, die die Inhalte von Commons weiterverwenden und auf diese Informationen vertrauen, die Risiken ohne ihr Wissen tragen dürfen. -- Cecil (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Natürlich ist es besser, wenn bewiesen werden kann, dass ein Bild schon gemeinfrei ist. Aber selbst in den USA ist ein unveröffentlichtes, anonymes Werk gemeinfrei 120 Jahre nach Erstellung. Das Bock-Photo muss älter als das sein. Beim Lilienthalphoto ist es nicht so klar, besonders wenn es wirklich 1896 gemacht worden ist, bei den anderen ist es schon extremst wahrscheinlich. Ich finde, ein bisschen gesunder Menschenverstand muss sein. Aber wenn es dir wichtig ist, dass nur 100% sichere Bilder benutzt werden, sollst du die entsprechenden Bilder bei de-wp auch zur Löschung nominieren. Was in de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100 steht, ist selbstverständlich Quatsch - die deutsche Wikipedia hat keine Berechtigung, Bilder zu benutzen, die möglicherweise urheberrechtlich geschützt sind, nur weil "die Wahrscheinlichkeit für eine Verfolgung durch einen Rechtsinhaber" gering ist. Oder besser gesagt, die deutsche Wikipedia hat keine Berechtigung dazu, wenn Commons sie auch nicht hat. Die einzigen Bilder, die auf de-wp sein müssen und nicht nach Commons verschoben werden können, sind (1) Logos und dgl., die die amerikanische aber nicht die deutsche Schöpfunghöhe erreichen und (2) unfreie Musikkleinzitaten, für die de-wp eigentlich eine EDP haben müsste. —Angr 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Die deutsche WP hat noch viele andere Bilder, die auf Commons nicht zulässig sind. Die verwenden nämlich unter anderem das Schutzlandprinzip, wodurch sie zB den Eiffelturm bei Nacht verwenden dürfen, während er auf Commons dank der französischen FOP nicht erlaubt ist. Und das Bock-Foto ist ja ganz offensichtlich nicht anonym, wenn die Angaben stimmen, und das von dir erwähnte US-Gesetz gilt nur für beweisbar anonyme Arbeiten. -- Cecil (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Da man Negatives bekanntlich nicht beweisen kann, ist garnichts beweisbar anonym. Sind die Server von de-wp inzwischen in Deutschland? Ich dachte, sie sind noch in der USA. Und wenn das Bock-Foto doch nicht anonym ist, ist erst richt kein Problem. —Angr 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Wenn du nicht bemerkt hast, dass das Bock-Foto nicht anonym ist und dass das Lilienthal-Foto im Upload-Log eine andere Jahreszahl hat, wie genau hast du dir dann die Bilder eigentlich angesehen, bevor du deine Entscheidung getroffen hast? Hast du überhaupt auf den Quelllink gedrückt oder einfach nur auf die Jahreszahl, ohne deren Glaubwürdigkeit zu überprüfen? So scheint es nämlich momentan. Und doch, Anonymität lässt sich auch beweisen, es gab/gibt genug Leute, die ihre Werke anonym veröffentlichen, und es gibt genug Behörden, die bereits vor 100/200/300 Jahren alles sehr sorgfältig dokumentierten. Z.B. die Library of Congress schreibt dazu, wenn sie bei einem Bild diesen Nachweis nicht hat und deshalb nicht sicher ist bzgl. der Lizenz. Und in die Bilderfragen der deutschen WP habe ich mich noch nie eingemischt, bin aber nicht mit allen Sachen einverstanden, aber das ist ein Thema für dort und nicht hier. Du kannst gerne versuchen, dort entsprechende Änderungen durchzusetzen und zB diese fragwürdige PD-100-Regelung abzuschaffen, nur dann haben diese Bilder, die du gerade behalten hast, nicht nur hier keine Berechtigung sondern dort auch nicht mehr, womit du deiner Entscheidung erst recht jede Berechtigung entziehst. -- Cecil (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Wie gesagt, die Bilder haben entweder an beiden Stellen (Commons und de-wp) eine Existenzberechtigung oder an keinen von beiden Stellen. Wenn es in Zukunft entschieden wird, dass sie doch gelöscht werden müssen, dann ist es schon praktisch, wenn sie nur noch bei Commons stehen. Ich habe übrigens nie behauptet, das Bock-Foto sei anonym. Und warum soll ich im Uploadlog von de-wp gucken, wenn ich bei Commons die alten LAs durcharbeite? Der Uploader hat das Datum beim zweiten Upload geändert aber den Text nicht geändert. Heute steht immer noch "1886" dort. Warum soll ich "1896" glauben? Und wenn die LoC schreibt, dass sie keinen Nachweis hat, wer der Autor eines Werks ist, ist Anonymität immer noch nicht bewiesen. Und der Autor eines anonym veröffentlichen Werkes kann später entlarvt werden (z.B. der Autor von Primary Colors), also selbst dann ist Anonymität nicht bewiesen. Wie gesagt, ein Negatives kann nicht bewiesen werden. —Angr 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
und wenn das Bock-Foto 'doch nicht' anonym ist hört sich sehr nach dem Gegenteil an. Und der Upload-Log ist bitte direkt bei der Bildbeschreibung auf Commons dabei. Und warum hast du 1886 geglaubt? Es ist immerhin keines von beidem mit einer überprüfbaren Quelle belegt, nur für deine Entscheidung hat natürlich die ältere Datumsangabe besser gepasst. Was bitte war deine Veranlassung, nicht überprüfbaren Angaben zu glauben? Da beide Angaben vom selben Autor stammen, kanns ja nicht AGF sein. Den LoC-Satz hast du anscheinend nicht verstanden: die LoC markiert extra, wenn sie etwas nicht nachweisen kann und Bilder daher nicht vertrauenswürdig sind, allerdings hat sie genug Bilder im Angebot, die anonym sind und extra als public domain markiert sind, eben weil sie ein Archiv hinter sich haben, dass mehrere hundert Jahre umfasst und mit dem sie die Anonymität beweisen können. Es stimmt schon, dass sich Anonymität oft mal auch mit ausgiebiger Recherche nicht nachweisen lässt, aber wo bitte hast du auch nur den kleinsten Ansatz einer derartigen Recherche gemacht. Dir hat ja einfach gereicht, dass jemand ein altes Datum hinschreibt und den Autor als anonym ausweist. Beim Lamont-Bild ist die Quelle einfach der erste Google-Bildsuche-Treffer gewesen (mittlerweile ist natürlich die WP vorgereiht). Saubere Recherche. Das macht Commons natürlich unheimlich vertrauenswürdig. Und wenn anonyme Autoren wirklich so schön problemlos entlarvt werden können, auch gegen ihren Willen (in deinem Beispiel hat der Betroffene die Anonymität selbst aufgegeben), würde mich bitte interessieren, wer das Buch Acten-mäßige und Umständliche Relation von denen Vampiren oder Menschen-Saugern verfasst hat. -- Cecil (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Mein Punkt war nur folgendes: du hast geschrieben, "das von dir erwähnte US-Gesetz gilt nur für beweisbar anonyme Arbeiten", aber es gibt keine beweisbar anonymen Arbeiten. Das LoC-Archiv kann es nicht beweisen, und die Tatsache, dass ein Werk unter dem Namen "Anonymus" veröffentlicht wurde, ist auch kein Beweis. Wenn deine Aussage richtig wäre, hätte das Gesetz überhaupt keine Gültigkeit. Nein, das Gesetz betrifft Werke, von denen man der Autor noch nicht weiß, und das trifft manche (nicht alle) von diesen Bildern. —Angr 04:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aerosol from Sneeze.jpg

Hello - apparently you marked this image for deletion. Could you let me know why? ThanksG716 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There was inadequate source information. It just said, "Transferred from en.wikipedia", and the (since deleted) file at en-wikipedia didn't give the original source either. —Angr 15:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PD-old-70

I noticed you're uploading pages from "A Welsh Grammar: Historical and Comparative" as a series, and tagging PD-old. It's not a big deal, but in the future, when you know a work is PD because the author died more than 70 years, but less than 100, can you use PD-old-70? I'm trying to get PD-old phased out eventually. Thanks a lot. Superm401 - Talk 05:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee, I just finished uploading the last of the over 500 pages from that book! I'll try to remember next time I upload a book, but for this one it's too late now. :-( —Angr 05:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Superm401 - Talk 06:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the dropdown issue. I brought it up at MediaWiki_talk:Licenses#PD-old-70_and_PD-old-100. Superm401 - Talk 18:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Enebro_quemado.jpg

Oui, j´ai fais la modificatión anonyme. --Xemenendura (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Très bien, merci! —Angr 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyfraud

hi there Angr,

about our discussion here Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD-art_images_from_museum_websites_allowed.3F about the Rembrandt image that was deleted, do you know how can I find out who deleted this image? Unfortunately I restored it back too quickly [1] without remembering that user's name, I would like to speak to him about this as well. Thanks alot. Gryffindor (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just tried something and I believe it was User:Kameraad Pjotr, do you agree? Gryffindor (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, according to [2] it was Kameraad Pjotr. —Angr 14:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anglospeak.svg

Hi, thanks for your help with the issue of the colouring of South Africa on the map. Please check your last change again as it doesn't seem to have worked. Dodger67 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks right to me. You may have to purge your cache to see the latest version. —Angr 18:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your comments on the talk page. The definitions of dark/light blue that you've restored are highly inaccurate. Joeldl (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (Google books)

I just want to thank you for the time you spent answering my question. It is very clear. I think I have to find out the things you told me. Thanks again.--eliasjorge4 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC) I will keep the information you gave me in my user page.--eliasjorge4 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Source tagging

It serves no useful purpose to ask for source information for works which are very obviously about 200 years old, when such information is not very easily obtainable and is not too relevant to whether the image should be deleted. I scanned in Image:Strechit ca1800-1810 non-sidesaddle sailor caricature.jpg from one of the late 19th century / early 20th century Eduard Fuchs "Karikatur" books, and it had no indication of the original authorship there, but was presented as an old British caricature (presumably by one of the well-known caricaturists of the period, such as James Gillray, Thomas Rowlandson, Isaac Cruikshank etc.) — and whether or not the image can stay on Wikimedia Commons in fact has very little to do with whether the exact authorship is known (as long as its early 19th-century status is clear), so demanding the exact authorship would be an exercise in enforced esoteric bibliographic research without a clear purpose. If you can't tell whether an image has a very high probability of originating in the early 19th-century by looking at it, then it would seem only reasonable for you to defer on this particular point to those who do possess such specialized historic expertise... Churchh (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of alleged "vandalism" in your edit summary

You are the one whose actions in this matter most closely resemble "vandalism", since you didn't have the simple courtesy to make any reply or acknowledgment to my detailed explanation given above. Churchh (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see the explanation above, but why didn't you put it on the image description page instead of on my talk page? What you wrote above is probably sufficient source information for our purposes, though it would be better if you knew exactly which book you scanned it from. I never denied the image was from the early 19th century, I merely pointed out it had no source information. —Angr 13:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I put it on your user talk page, since it's your actions, not the image's status, which have been most problematic. Since the presence of a "no source" tag starts an image down a time-limited path to automatic deletion, therefore you should add a "no source" tag to an image page if and only if the lack of a stated source would play a significant role in deciding whether or not the image should be deleted -- which was never the case here. Churchh (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the absence of source information, and your unwillingness to provide it until deletion was imminent, were the only problems here. —Angr 17:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I scanned the image in in September 1998, over five years before Commons even existed, and retained such information as seemed useful and relevant to me at the time. If I had ever had the original caricature authorship information, then I would have included it on the image description page; and if lacking the original caricature authorship information meant that the image's status was dubious, then I never would have uploaded it here in the first place. Please do not tag an image with templates leading to deletion if there is no real reason to delete an image, and don't be surprised when people assume that you have read comments left on your talk page. Churchh (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Maps of Salzgitter

Lieber Angr, beim Betrachten Deiner Karten von den Stadtteilen Salzgitters fiel mir auf, dass speziell bei den kleinen Ortsteilen nicht auf den ersten Blick zu erkennen ist, wo denn dieser Ortsteil liegt. Ich habe daher für den Stadtteil Salzgitter-Hohenrode eine neue Karte erzeugt, in der man nach meiner Meinung die Lage des Ortsteils auch schon in der thumb-Version erkennen kann (siehe image:Salzgitter map Hohenrode.svg. Dabei habe ich Deine Karte von Salzgitter als Grundlage genommen und diese nach meinen Vorstellungen angepasst. Falls Du mit meinem Änderungsvorschlag einverstanden bist, möchte ich auch alle anderen Karten der Stadtteile Salzgitters anpassen und diese in die Wikipedia-Artikel über die Ortsteile einbauen.

P.S. Entschuldige bitte, wenn ich in Deutsch schreibe, aber mit dem Englischen hapert es ein wenig. Du kannst mir aber gerne auf Englisch antworten. user:johamar - 2009-01-26 19:58

Ja, gar kein Problem. —Angr 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrative notice

Deutsch

Dear Mahagaja/Archive 3. I am writing to you to inform you that because of inactivity, you may lose your adminship on Commons.

Commons has a new policy on admin activity, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, taken into use on June 13, 2007 (after a two-week poll on the proposed policy's talk page).

If you want to keep your adminship, you have to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days. Note that if you don't make 5 admin actions in the following 5 months, you will then lose the adminship anyways.

Thank you — Mike.lifeguard 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GIS files

do you know where I could get GIS shapefiles of Berlin and its boroughs?

-Tcat780

I don't know, sorry. I drew my Berlin maps by hand. —Angr 14:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about New York blank.svg

I think this question is somewhat silly, but I'm not a map person, so I need to ask. You created File:New York blank.svg, and a question has come up in the en.wikipedia Feature Article Candidacy of w:Fort Ticonderoga over whether the data set used to create it is freely available. Can you answer this question?

Thanks! Magic♪piano 12:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:BerlinDistricts.png

Hi, ich habe die Berlin Karte modifiziert (und Punkte eingefügt) und möchte Sie gern in meiner Diplomarbeit verwenden. Welche Quellenangaben muss ich dazu schreiben?

Karte: als pdf. hier: [modifizierte Karte]

danke und gruß.

Du kannst eine von den drei Lizenzen auswählen. Du musst mich ("Wikimedia Commons Benutzer Angr", vorzugsweise mit Link auf meine Benutzerseite) nur als Autor angeben. —Angr 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

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, Mahagaja!
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 07:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Question: Blake no source (in particular, who drew the picture?) Answer: Blake, William. cygnis insignis 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't just tell me; add the source info to the image and remove the tag so it doesn't get deleted! —Angr 06:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Not my image, I couldn't say for certain where it was from. I could guess. Anyway, you added the tag?! The 'source' is William Blake, that information is contained in the file description. cygnis insignis 18:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
But that could be referring only to the text, couldn't it? —Angr 19:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why interference Category:Gastronomy?

See also Why interference Category:Gastronomy? (Category:Gastronomy --> Category talk:Gastronomy)--Tom778 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


The Munster Irish vowel chart

Hello Angr, I would like to commment on your diagram of the Munster Irish vowels. Having a copy of O Cuiv 1944 myself, they seem pretty accurate to me. However, I think the positioning of /i/ and /u/, as in "sin" and "ar fud", is too low. O Cuiv says of Irish schwa after palatals (e.g. "cine") that it is not as high a normal Irish /i/, but about the same as southern English (i.e. RP) /i/. Daniel Jones, who was the man making the descriptions of "southern English" at this time, places /i/ exactly where you placed /i/ for Munster Irish, namely slightly higher than Cardinal 2. So I recommend that /i/ be placed higher than it is currently on your chart, around midway between Cardinals 1 and 2, (but with the same degree of centrality as before). Now you might feel that this would result in there being nearly no difference between /i:/ and /i/ in terms of closeness. I think this would be accurate; my impressions of conservative Irish English speakers from Cork and Kerry is that their /i/ is indeed noticeably closer than RP or American English, and correspondingly with /u/, which also sounds closer (and indeeed more rounded). Another minor thing I notices with the map was the range of allophones of /a/. I like the way you used an oval to indicate their wide spread in terms of backness. O Cuiv lists the backest allophone of /a/ as more advanced than RP /A:/ (as in "start", "palm"), which is itself well advanced of the back. This suggests the "backest" allophone was in fact central. The frontest allophone was Cardinal 4 or slightly higher. Therefore, I think if the map is to be as faithful to O Cuiv, I would bring the oval further forward. Lastly, I'd like to say that I have found Breathnach's (1947) phonetic descriptions more satisfactory than O Cuiv's. For instance, Breathnach picks up on the fact that /o/ is slightly slightly higher and slightly more forward than Cardinal 6. While it could easily be the case that Breathnach, describing the Waterford dialect, was picking up on a dialect specific form, I have found that Breathnach has a better analysis of the vowels than O Cuiv generally, who hugged the phonetic ground far too much. You've probably noticed how O Cuiv lists /a/ and /A/ as different phonemes, whereas Breathnach shows convincingly from his own close listening to the Waterford dialect that there can only be one phoneme here.


Deletion requests File:Geschändetehostie.jpg

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!

Hello Angr, I wish you a happy New Year! Please can you correct my english translation at the end of this discussion? Thanks in advance -- Jlorenz1 (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Meyers

Hallo Angr, kannst du mir sagen, auf welcher Seite dein Scan [3] in Meyers Konversationslexikon zu finden ist? Leider habe ich keine Info auf der Beschreibung oder Diskussion gefunden und beim Scan fehlt sie auch. Brauche das für eine Quellenangabe. --PaulBommel (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Es scheint als extra Beilage zur 5. Auflage veröffentlicht worden zu sein, hat also keine Seitennummer. —Angr 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Message for Angr

Dear Angr,

I am an art historian writing a biography on Klaus Nomi. I noticed that on 12/13/06 you added Immenstadt to his Wikipedia entry as place birth.

Could you please tell me where you obtained this information?

Thank you very much for your help.

I assume I took it from the German Wikipedia. The claim is unsourced there, though; I don't know where they got the info from. —Angr 11:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What goes up must come down / Spinnin' wheel, got to go round / Catch a painted pony on the spinnin' wheel ride

Re: File:Elderlyspinnera.jpg: Rural Ireland could be poor and rustic, but by the late nineteenth century it was closely tied to the economy of England, where spinning had been heavily mechanized for over a century. Spinning wouldn't have been a very economically practical use of a great deal of time which poor women could have spent doing other tasks, and certainly hand-spinning couldn't undercut English factories in the price of thread. Churchh (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. And they believe that commons policy is not so clear regarding the subject. So since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A.Talk 13:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

California vowel chart

Dear Angr,

I would like to ask you about your graph "California English vowel chart.png". Can you send me your email or other address?

Regards, Ms. Pazit Shani-Schwartz Permissions department The Open University of Israel

Just click Special:EmailUser/Angr. —Angr 15:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Licence

Re. your post, the licence is on the originating site, if you click the link given under the image itself. It will take you to this page, where the relevant image and appropriate licence can be found at the bottom of the page. Please also see the detailed explanation in the thread on my talk page immediately above your post. Ty 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

Hello Angr, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

virgin of guadalupe

Hi -- you left me a message asking for more information about the Virgin of Guadalupe file, but I don't have any more information. It's a faithful two-dimensional photo of a piece of art in the public domain, and I found and uploaded it years ago, but I no longer remember where I originally got it. So I don't know what else to do. best, Katsam (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Africa map typo

Spelling correction applied. Thanks for your attention. Sting (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus does not have a state religion. The current maps used Christian_States.svg and State Religions.svg, are not only outdated they are false.

Cyprus does not have a state religion. The current maps used Christian_States.svg and State Religions.svg, are not only outdated they are false.

Here is a link to the Constitution of Cyprus Article 18. There is no provision that establishes a state religion.

Could you edit these two maps again? Thank you.

TUSC token a7dcc130e91f613f4337ae498595b5ce

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Audrey_Hepburn_Roman_Holiday_cropped.jpg

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Sysywjel (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you erase Cyprus in the File:State Religions.svg map, because Cyprus does not have a state religion, nor is there any provision in its constitution for a state religion.

Cyprus does NOT have a state religion, nor is there any provision in its constitution for a state religion. Here is a link to the Constitution of Cyprus for proof: http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/cy00000_.html Could you correct the "File:State Religions.svg" map by removing Cyprus? Thank you.

State Religions.svg
Sorry, I no longer have the ability to edit SVG files as I used to. Perhaps one of the other editors of the file can help. —Angr 13:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Source

I am actually a photographer who has worked for newspapers. But I would gladly give some more sources. I would have prefered to have been asked before the file was tagged, though... I do not very much like this harsh approach. :) Polozooza (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seemed rough. At Commons, we get a whole lot of people uploading press photos taken decades ago and claiming to be the author. Most of the time it's more efficient to simply tag the photo, because most of the time the uploader disappears shortly after doing the upload and is never seen again. In this case, I confess I didn't even notice the photo had been uploaded less than two hours before I tagged it. Usually when I encounter pics like these, they were uploaded years ago and there's no hope of contacting the uploader. —Angr 11:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
In this case, it is different. Mr. Staal is not a very famous man outside his province & homeland, and the photograph has not been used much. It was taken in 1985, a year before the subject died. The article(s) needed some illustration so I decided to upload it. Polozooza (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dein Rat ist gefragt.

Hallo Angr, Du scheinst der einzige Englisch-Muttersprachler mit guten Deutschkenntnissen auf Commons zu sein. Ich bitte Dich, mal bei Commons:Forum#Ortsteil_in_Englisch vorbeizuschauen. Wir bräuchten jemanden, der uns sagen kann, wie Ortsteile (ehemals selbständige Orte, die zu einer neuen Gesamtgemeinde zusammengefasst wurden) auf Englisch bezeichnet werden. Und vielleicht zur Unterscheidung dazu die Stadtteile (die manchmal auch aus ehemals selbständigen Orten bestehen, aber eben heute zu einer Stadt gehören). Ort/Gemeinde/Stadt. Herzlichen Dank. --Schwäbin (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Africa_1909_01.png

File:Africa_1909_01.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Bokpasa (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Whatimlookingfor.jpg

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

russavia (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panorama Berliner Olympiastadion-Glockenturm.jpg

Hallo Angr, ich habe die unsinnige Schließung von Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panorama Berliner Olympiastadion-Glockenturm.jpg rückgängig gemacht. Du bist willkommen dich dort der Sache dienlich zu äußern. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Deine ewige Trollerei schadet niemandem außer dir selbst. —Angr 18:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Pardon? Ich glaube du möchtest deine Aussage korrigieren. --Saibo (Δ) 00:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Akhanda_Bharatabarsham.jpg/Commons:Deletion requests

Hi Angr, it is in replay of your comment on
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Akhanda_Bharatabarsham.jpg
I would like to say that the file Akhanda_Bharatabarsham.jpg is not at all unclear.
Akhanda Bharatabarsham means the Greater India which included all the areas which were ever been a part of Indian Empire or part of Indian Civilization or proven to be under Hindu or Dharmic rule.
Madagascar,and northwestern Australia are included because they came under a ancient South Indian Kingdome called Kumari Kandam, and New Guinea is included because it was under Hindu rule in the ancient ages along with Indonesia and other south east Asian countries --Bismay(talk) 03:00,30 September (UTC)

File:Berlin Philharmonic rehearsing.jpg

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pollo2003 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Slovenian language map.png

Hi, your map of the Slovene language is also used in the English Wikipedia to illustrate the extent of the Slovene Lands. I've found another map in the book A Short History of Yugoslavia: from Early Times to 1966 (1966), written by Stephen Clissold and Henry Clifford, pg. 20,[4] that shows the extent of the pre-1918 Slovene Lands extending to what is now Croatia. Would you be willing to prepare another map similar to File:Slovenian language map.png, taking this reference into consideration, so that it could be used instead of the current one? --Eleassar (t/p) 08:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't do it myself as I no longer have the right software, but my map is public domain so anyone can modify it however they like. —Angr 15:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahagaja/Archive_3&oldid=268493013"